# Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case



## Loachman (7 Feb 2019)

It was hard to cut much out of this for brevity, as it is all so _interesting_.

And it could get much interestinger between now and the election.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-a-commission-of-inquiry-into-snc-lavalin-and-the-prime-ministers-office/

For a commission of inquiry into SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister’s Office

Paul Wells: What’s alleged in today’s Globe story is not just plausible, it points to bigger PMO problems. And it’s the sort of thing that can destroy governments.

by Paul Wells

Feb 7, 2019

Today’s most important reading was published on Jan. 14.

That’s when Jody Wilson-Raybould, the UBC-educated lawyer from the We Wai Kai Nation, released a long, detailed memo explaining her accomplishments as Minister of Justice and Attorney General - on the very day Justin Trudeau demoted her to the Veterans Affairs portfolio.

    “The role of the Attorney General of Canada carries with it unique responsibilities to uphold the rule of law and the administration of justice, and as such demands a measure of principled independence,” she wrote. (I’m bolding the sections that seem particularly germane today.) “It is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political interference and uphold the highest levels of public confidence. As such, it has always been my view that the Attorney General of Canada must be non-partisan, more transparent in the principles that are the basis of decisions, and, in this respect, always willing to speak truth to power. This is how I served throughout my tenure in that role.”

Look, that’s just an odd thing to write if you’re mostly interested in bragging about your legislative accomplishments.

I’ve seen a lot of attorneys-general leave that post, and none felt the need to remind everyone that they had sought to avoid “even the perception of political interference.” Absent any pressure to do things that might give the perception of political interference, it would seem as extraneous as writing, “I worked hard to keep the mail-room budget under control” or “I tried to maintain excellent posture during Question Period.”

None of that proves a thing, of course. It’s not a smoking gun. It’s more of a… I don’t know, a smoke-filled room. But it is damned interesting reading in the context of today’s Globe and Mail line story. (It’s paywalled. Pay up.) The story asserts, on the basis of unnamed sources, that Wilson-Raybould “came under heavy pressure to persuade the Public Prosecution Service of Canada” to cut a “deferred prosecution arrangement” with SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., the mammoth Montreal engineering and construction firm, to forestall a trial over corruption and fraud charges.

<snip>

Now, here’s the other thing: None of that matters. If - it’s a huge if - the Prime Minister’s Office leaned on the Attorney General to pressure the public prosecutor’s office to conduct any case in any way, then it doesn’t matter how nice the defendant is.

The intervention would be the infraction.

The Director of Public Prosecutions Act is clear: If the Attorney General inflects the work of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada in any way, for any reason, they must put it in writing in a directive that must be published in the Canada Gazette. There is no provision for cutting a nice guy some slack.

In fact, the course of events I’ve sketched above - battle-scarred pillar of Quebec Inc. wants fewer legal impediments to turn over a new leaf so it can continue scoring big global development contracts - makes the claims in the Globe story more plausible on their face. This is the sort of call one might conceivably make, if one did not care about what Jody Wilson-Raybould calls “a measure of principled independence.”

Wilson-Raybould’s on-the-record quotes in the Globe story are the furthest thing from denials. “That is between me and the government as the government’s previous lawyer” is not the sort of thing you say when an allegation is false. You say it’s false. I’m not saying Wilson-Raybould’s response proves anything, but it leaves ample room for the thing to be true, as one possibility among many.

The PMO line, sent last night to the Globe and repeated this morning by the PM, is nearly identical and nearly meaningless. The PM didn’t “direct” Wilson-Raybould “to draw any conclusions on this matter,” the PMO said on Wednesday. Trudeau chimed in today, singing close harmony: neither he nor his staff  “directed” JWR “to make any particular decision in this matter.” Thanks. That’s great. You could drive a truck through that. Pressure wouldn’t be “direction,” and at no point would Wilson-Raybould need to “draw any conclusions” or “make any particular decision” - she would, if the allegations are true, be trying to inflect someone else’s conclusions or decisions.

So where are we?

We have a minister of the crown - Wilson-Raybould is still that, as of today - reminding everyone that she had “unique responsibilities” against “even the perception of political appearance.”

We have a public trail of increasing dissatisfaction at SNC with the way this case was going, leading up to October, four months ago.

We have Wilson-Raybould getting shuffled out of her job, to her obvious displeasure, at the next opportunity.

We have non-denials from the minister and artfully meaningless denials from the Prime Minister.

The allegations at hand are vastly more grave than the news that Stephen Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright, once wrote a personal cheque to make the Mike Duffy problem go away. This is about what Justin Trudeau’s first hand-picked attorney general calls a “pillar of our democracy.”

So let’s cut to the chase. When Justin Trudeau’s vacation with the Aga Khan started to become a problem, he spent a few weeks exploiting fine print and technicalities like a Philadelphia lawyer in hopes that everyone in Canada had lost their ability to parse transparent double-talk. There is no point in trying to do the same here.

In the absence of public denials from Jody Wilson-Raybould and her officials that anything like what is alleged in the Globe story ever happened - and I would say, even if she now makes any such denials - this needs a commission of inquiry. This is the sort of thing that, if proven, properly destroys governments.

One more question. Why on earth would any Liberal, knowing this, co-operate with the Globe’s investigation or any other stories that might come to light in coming days?

I don’t know who the Globe’s sources are, and I’ve learned that attempts to guess another reporter’s sources usually miss the mark by a mile. But let me make this general observation about the Liberal Party of Canada and Justin Trudeau’s PMO. In recent months I have been increasingly critical of the PMO and especially of Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts. Frankly it hasn’t been great fun. I don’t get a kick out of being that specific in criticisms of a government. And typically, when you say “PM’s staff,” no matter who the PM is, what you really mean is “the PM.” But the way this government hoses money around for show sickens me.

What I’ve noticed is that when I have been bluntly critical of Trudeau’s PMO, no Liberal in Canada, outside the PMO, has reached out to criticize me, to gently try to correct perceptions, or otherwise to suggest I’m off-track. In fact, in a large number of cases, the response has been quite the opposite. I hear things like “Thank God” and “About time” and “I’ve been loving those columns.”

That’s all very anecdotal and personal and back-patting, so I’m sorry for all of it. But the conclusion I draw is: Justin Trudeau’s senior PMO staff doesn’t have a lot of fans, even among people who wish Trudeau well and whose personal futures are bound up with his. That may start to matter a lot now.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2019)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Yup....this will go far.......
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peoples-party-canada-bernier-tyler-thompson-1.4970112
> 
> ...



...for a second there, the article picture looked like Bernier standing beside Ann Coulter (with straightened hair)...fortunately his newest prospect isn’t anywhere close to being that extreme to the right.........


----------



## PuckChaser (7 Feb 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> And it could get much interestinger between now and the election.
> 
> https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-a-commission-of-inquiry-into-snc-lavalin-and-the-prime-ministers-office/
> 
> For a commission of inquiry into SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister’s Office



Sure makes paying back taxpayers for inappropriate expenses or a $16 orange juice look like a drop of water in the ocean, doesn't it?


----------



## Remius (7 Feb 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Sure makes paying back taxpayers for inappropriate expenses or a $16 orange juice look like a drop of water in the ocean, doesn't it?



It makes people like me not want to vote for the governing party...


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Feb 2019)

Just a question: why is the RCMP not investigating what could be termed as “obstruction of justice “ as reported by the Globe and Mail?


----------



## FSTO (8 Feb 2019)

Pretty scathing opinion piece from Paul Wells

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/for-a-commission-of-inquiry-into-snc-lavalin-and-the-prime-ministers-office/

This final section is very telling (to me) of the deteriorating relationship between the principals in the PMO and the Liberal Caucus.

_*"One more question. Why on earth would any Liberal, knowing this, co-operate with the Globe’s investigation or any other stories that might come to light in coming days?

I don’t know who the Globe’s sources are, and I’ve learned that attempts to guess another reporter’s sources usually miss the mark by a mile. But let me make this general observation about the Liberal Party of Canada and Justin Trudeau’s PMO. In recent months I have been increasingly critical of the PMO and especially of Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts. Frankly it hasn’t been great fun. I don’t get a kick out of being that specific in criticisms of a government. And typically, when you say “PM’s staff,” no matter who the PM is, what you really mean is “the PM.” But the way this government hoses money around for show sickens me.

What I’ve noticed is that when I have been bluntly critical of Trudeau’s PMO, no Liberal in Canada, outside the PMO, has reached out to criticize me, to gently try to correct perceptions, or otherwise to suggest I’m off-track. In fact, in a large number of cases, the response has been quite the opposite. I hear things like “Thank God” and “About time” and “I’ve been loving those columns.”

That’s all very anecdotal and personal and back-patting, so I’m sorry for all of it. But the conclusion I draw is: Justin Trudeau’s senior PMO staff doesn’t have a lot of fans, even among people who wish Trudeau well and whose personal futures are bound up with his. That may start to matter a lot now." 
*_

_- mod edit to fix link to article -_


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Feb 2019)

Agree. The most telling to me is : *But the way this government hoses money around for show sickens me.*


----------



## Remius (8 Feb 2019)

The At Issue panel last night on CBC were all in agreement. 

If nothing transpired and the allegations are false then the former Attorney General could have/would have come out right away and denied. 

"No Comment" is very telling that something isn't right. 

And maybe her loyalty has been shaken by being punished for doing the right thing.  Mine would.


----------



## Loachman (8 Feb 2019)

A few more snippets:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/scheer-committee-snc-lavalin-1.5011161

Jody Wilson-Raybould says she's bound by 'solicitor-client privilege,' won't comment on SNC-Lavalin scandal

Media report suggests PMO pressured former attorney general to intervene in fraud case

John Paul Tasker CBC News Posted: Feb 08, 2019 10:33 AM ET

Former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould said Friday she would not comment on claims that the Prime Minister's Office tried to pressure her to help SNC-Lavalin avoid criminal prosecution in pending legal action against the construction company.

"As the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada, I am bound by solicitor-client privilege in this matter," she said.

In her role as attorney general, Wilson-Raybould served as the government's top lawyer and the chief law officer of the Crown - nominally representing the government in all of its prosecutions. Under common law, communication between the office of the attorney general and other offices of government typically is privileged under the solicitor-client privilege.

But at least one criminal defence lawyer was questioning Wilson-Raybould's privilege argument Friday, saying Prime Minister Justin Trudeau could easily waive it and allow his former justice minister to speak freely and truthfully on the matter.

<snip>

Even if she's bound by solicitor-client privilege, Spratt said he doesn't believe she would be barred from denying the contents of a news story. "If it's so ludicrous, so fanciful, I don't think there's anything that stops her from saying 'That's not true,'" he said.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-conservatives-ndp-seek-to-launch-investigation-into-allegations-of/

Conservatives, NDP seek to launch investigation into allegations of interference by PMO: Scheer

Robert Fife Ottawa Bureau Chief Steven Chase

Published February 8, 2019

On Friday morning, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said opposition MPs will attempt to launch a committee investigation into the allegations that former justice minister and attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould had resisted pressure from the Prime Minister’s Office to issue a directive to the Public Prosecution Service of Canada to shelve court proceedings against SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. in favour of a negotiated settlement without trial.

He said Conservative and NDP MPs on the Commons justice committee will try to set up hearings on the matter and request nine high-ranking government officials appear before members of Parliament to answer questions. Mr. Scheer said opposition MPs are calling for an emergency meeting of the standing committee on justice and human rights.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-tale-of-prosecutorial-interference-a-mortal-threat-to-the-trudeau-brand?video_autoplay=true

Chris Selley: Tale of prosecutorial interference a mortal threat to the Trudeau brand

It would be perfectly emblematic of a government that promised a new way of doing things, but is capable of cynicism that could make Jean Chrétien blush

Chris Selley February 7, 2019 8:27 PM EST

In a Thursday press conference, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau denied that he or anyone from his office directed Justice Minister (as she then was) Jody Wilson-Raybould to abandon the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin over some funny business in Libya, and instead pursue a friendlier so-called “remediation agreement.”

Interestingly, no one had alleged what he denied. The front page of Thursday’s Globe and Mail did not report that anyone “directed” Wilson Raybould to lay off the politically well-connected Montreal-based engineering firm, but rather that the PMO tried to persuade her to do that, and that she told them to pound sand.

And now she is an ex-justice minister.

Reporter: Was “any sort of influence” applied?

Trudeau: “At no time did I or my office direct the … attorney general to make any particular decision in this matter.”

Reporter: “Was there any sort of influence whatsoever?”

Trudeau: “At no time did we direct the attorney general … to take any decision whatsoever in this matter.”

Yikes.

Do these very serious, possibly criminal allegations ring true? Savagely demoting a strong-willed justice minister whom you’ve just asked to do something egregious, possibly illegally, doesn’t seem like a very savvy political play. But then, Trudeau’s PMO isn’t half as savvy as it thinks it is. (In theory Wilson-Raybould could have backed up the PMO’s story on Thursday, but she declined to comment.) It would have been an outrageous attempted abuse of power, certainly, but hardly unprecedented in the greasy annals of Ottawa history.

Indeed, if the public winds up believing this narrative, that’s exactly why it could leave a real scar on the Liberals. It would be perfectly emblematic of a government that promised a whole new way of doing things, but that’s capable of cynicism that could make Jean Chrétien blush.

“Canadians from all across this country sent a message that it is time for real change, and I am deeply honoured by the faith they have placed in my team and me,” Trudeau said in a statement on Nov. 4, 2015, after swearing in his gender-balanced Cabinet featuring Wilson-Raybould, Canada’s first-ever Indigenous justice minister. “This strong, diverse, and experienced team will serve all Canadians.”

Three-and-a-bit years later, Wilson-Raybould was busted down to Veteran’s Affairs and Washroom Cleanliness for reasons no one could quite understand. Some saw her (ahem) reassignment as a betrayal of Trudeau’s reconciliation agenda. But the irony, of course, is that Wilson-Raybould oversaw some of the biggest disappointments the Trudeau government had to offer its supporters.

https://ccla.org/pmo-discovered-presumption-innocence/

The PMO Has Discovered the Presumption of Innocence

February 7, 2019

Michael Bryant

SNC-Gate might be the way the Kremlin works, wherein Putin officials manipulate the justice system to benefit his friends, but not Canada. Nobody is above the law in this country. Nobody.

So if PMO crackerjacks made legal changes to the Criminal Code to accommodate a Quebec conglomerate, then lobbied the Justice Minister to politicize a criminal prosecution, then this government is about to learn the hard way that messing with the administration of justice is not just bad politics. It may be a crime.

The Globe investigation may have already triggered a criminal investigation into allegations that PMO officials committed obstruction of justice and breach of trust under the Criminal Code. This story has all the hallmarks of a corrupt police state. If true, it confirms the public’s worst fears about the justice system. That it’s about who you know, in the PMO, not what you did.   

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/07/legal-community-raises-alarms-over-allegations-pmo-interfered-in-snc-lavalin-case/

Legal community raises alarms over allegations PMO interfered in SNC-Lavalin case

By Marieke Walsh. Published on Feb 7, 2019 7:06pm

TORONTO — The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is calling for a police investigation into bombshell allegations that Justin Trudeau’s office interfered in the criminal case against SNC-Lavalin.

“Messing with the administration of justice is not just bad politics. It may be a crime,” CCLA executive director Michael Bryant said in a statement Thursday.

Earlier in the day, the Globe and Mail reported that the Prime Minister’s Office urged then attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to intervene in a corruption case against the Quebec engineering and construction services company. The criminal case centres on allegations the company paid millions in bribes to secure government contracts in Libya.

The Globe reports the prime minister’s office wanted SNC-Lavalin to avoid going to trial and instead get a deal that would allow the company to pay a fine but admit no criminal wrongdoing. The deal is known as a “deferred prosecution agreement,” or a “remediation agreement, and was only made legal in Canada last year.

<snip>

Despite multiple requests for comment, the RCMP has not yet told iPolitics whether it is reviewing the allegations.

The prime minister’s carefully worded denial further damages the government’s position, according to University of Calgary law professor Michael Nesbitt.

“This response actually makes this whole thing worse,” Nesbitt tweeted. “The concern has always been ‘influence’ not ‘direct.’ The difference is between ‘corrupt’ and ‘stupid and corrupt,’ and the former is harder to detect, weed out & correct.”


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Feb 2019)

*Political interference.* Go to Court on one, no Court on another. The reasons are obviously political on both.

The Norman case.

*2 Feb 18* - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says the police investigation into Vice-Admiral Mark Norman will "inevitably" lead to "court processes," even though the military's second-highest ranked officer has not yet been charged with any crime.

The actual quote: “On the issue of the case which is very much underway in terms of investigation and inevitably court processes, I won’t say much, other than to say I took the advice of our chief of defence staff on this particular case,” Trudeau responded. “I trust our public service in their capacity to make determinations about what actually needs to happen in cases like this.”



http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190209/textview

*I would have expected Trudeau’s blood to boil* - NP Rex Murphy - 9 Feb 19
    _THERE WAS NO ENERGY, NO FORCE, NO IMPULSE OF CONVICTION OR OUTRAGE_

“What are you saying? Of course we didn’t. The idea that I, or anyone who works in my office, would interfere or pressure the Justice Minister in her proper role as the guardian of the rule of law — so much as lift an eyebrow when she is in the room — is preposterous, insulting, and absolutely and without qualification FALSE. And to be doubly clear on this, I’d instantly fire anyone who even brought up a whisper of a suggestion of it.”

Apart from proving that I’ll never be a playwright, the above smidgen of invented response is meant to display how a party leader would naturally speak when a newspaper has questioned his honour and the honour of his government on a matter as profound as attempting to influence the course of justice or pressure a justice minister in her function as guardian of the rule of law.

The denial would be energetic, spontaneously expressed, a rush of words thrown back at the questioner and directly addressing the point of the question. It would not be some bloodless sentence, exquisitely phrased, designed in committee by crisis-management teams, evasive and equivocal, and delivered in a frozen robotic monotone with all the passion of some of those painfully overacted Heritage Moments we lately hear so much about.

*IT WAS STUMBLING AND NERVELESS*

The prime minister in responding to a direct question on the SNC-Lavalin affair went the bloodless, pre-written, robotic route: “Neither the current nor the previous attorney general was ever directed by me or by anyone in my office to take a decision in this matter.” As the always perspicuous Chris Selley noted in these pages, “Interestingly, no one had alleged what he denied.”

A worthy reporter noting the particular stress Mr. Trudeau had put on the word “directed” went back with “are you saying now categorically there was no influence, or any pushing whatsoever …?” Mr. Trudeau, totally ignoring the questioner’s point and his explicit request for categorical denial of “pushing” or “influence” — it was as if it had not been asked — then repeated, word by exquisite word, the exact, inadequate, prefabricated stream of words he had already given. The reporter, admirably, tried again “… but not necessarily direct, Prime Minister, was there any sort of influence whatsoever?” Then for a third time (I expected a **** to crow somewhere) Mr. Trudeau flopped back to the identical stilted reply he had already given twice.

The reporter could have been questioning an old-fashioned teletype machine, preset for one reply only, for all the attention his actual questions were receiving. In sticking to “direct” as his lexical life raft, the prime minister called up the almost faded memories of the great equivocator himself, that maestro of semantic misdirection, Bill Clinton, who famously exploited the lexical latitude of the verb “to be.” Ah, lord, he was a wonder. He may have been president, but America missed a genius grammarian in the process.

There’s a whole lot in this latest flare. And hardly the least, beyond the allegations of favouritism to a Quebec company and lobby efforts with the PMO and others, is the cloud not hovering over the government’s high sanctimony — so furiously invoked in the diplomatic crisis with China — regarding its dedication to the rule of law. The crisis over SNC-Lavalin merges here with the crisis over the arrest of Huawei Technologies’ CFO Meng Wanzhou. It is difficult to parade under the principled banner of the rule of law abroad when there is a reasoned allegation that it’s tattered at home.

And then there is the question of the previous minister of justice, and her recent ejection from the high table of government ministers to the lesser role of Veterans Affairs. In an explicitly feminist government, with a pledge to make Aboriginal issues its prime moral concern, the demotion of this minister, Aboriginal and female, seems to puncture the piety on both fronts. (A not so incidental point — why is she not the lead cabinet voice, the minister, on Indigenous Affairs and Reconciliation?) Should it turn out that she was scapegoated — and the question is not nearly resolved on this point — but should it turn out so, it will be a nuclear political detonation for a government that has offered piety after piety on its “sensitivity” and concern for both women and Aboriginals.

Let me return to what I regard as Mr. Trudeau’s strange strain of response to The Globe and Mail’s reporting. When a person knows that an allegation is completely off the rails, knows that what is being hinted at or directly charged is baseless, without merit, completely off track, that person is immediately invested with a miraculous fluency and liberality of expression. He can really let fly.

Politicians in particular pray for such moments. Even the poorest speaker in such a case is suddenly gifted with marvellous eloquence and directness and dismisses the question with blistering scorn, utterly without qualification or equivocation. There was no energy, no force, no impulse of conviction or outrage in the early Trudeau replies on Thursday. It was a stumbling and nerveless, lawyerly as we say when we wish to indicate someone is dancing barefoot on hot coals and pretending the shoes he isn’t wearing are a little tight.



Here is some Trudeau passion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8igrMJ9L4po


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Feb 2019)

Deceit dies in the light.


----------



## Old Sweat (9 Feb 2019)

Andrew Coyne makes some interesting points in this column from The National Post. Still, we don't know yet one way or the other. As a card-carrying member of the CPC, I am finding it hard to keep my mouth shut, but I will.

Andrew Coyne: Hard to overstate seriousness of SNC-Lavalin allegations
Will the pattern be repeated? We're about to find out whether this really is a country governed by the rule of law at all

February 8, 2019
9:17 PM EST

Can it be? Can a large, politically sensitive corporation with a history of buying influence avoid prosecution in this country by the mere expedient of a phone call to the prime minister’s office? Can the prime minister’s staff have charges against the corporation dropped by a quick call to the minister of justice? Is that the sort of country we live in?

After this week, we can guess how these questions would be answered in the prime minister’s office, at least: yes, of course. Indeed, long before it was reported officials in Justin Trudeau’s office had pressured the former Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to have prosecutors set aside criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin, the giant Quebec engineering and construction firm, the government had gone to some trouble to provide the company with a softer option.

Buried deep in the 2018 omnibus budget bill was a provision allowing corporations charged with certain offences to avoid prosecution by signing so-called “remediation agreements.” In place of convictions, fines and jail times, the company and its executives are obliged, in essence, to admit they did it, put back the money, and promise never to do it again. The amendment was inserted after a strenuous campaign of public advertising and private lobbying (14 meetings with officials in the prime minister’s office alone) by — who? — why yes, SNC-Lavalin.

John Ivison: The government needs to let Jody Wilson-Raybould speak
Rex Murphy: Trudeau sure doesn’t sound like he has nothing to hide about SNC-Lavalin
NP View: Trudeau’s ‘rule of law’ lectures to China seem laughable after SNC-Lavalin
The issue was of more than academic concern to the company, which has since 2015 been facing charges of bribing public officials in Libya, in violation of federal anti-corruption legislation. But then, the company was no stranger to scandal, foreign and domestic, before that: from the Padma bridge project in Bangladesh to the Kerala hydroelectric dam in India to the McGill University Health Centre in Montreal to the 2016 compliance agreement with Elections Canada in which it admitted funnelling tens of thousands of dollars in illegal campaign donations through its employees over several years, almost all of them to the Liberal Party of Canada.

You can imagine how attractive “remediation” would be in such cases, as an alternative to imprisonment. For managers, the risk of getting caught becomes no more than the cost of doing business: heads you get the contract, tails you (or rather shareholders) pay a fine. SNC-Lavalin says the executives responsible have left the company, that its corporate culture has changed. But while it may no longer be in the business of breaking laws, it certainly appears to be in the business of drafting them, with the help of high-priced lobbyists telling sob stories to compliant politicians of the dire economic impact in A Certain Province if the company were held to account for its actions.

Alas for SNC-Lavalin and the Liberals, even with the remediation provision in place, it remained up to the discretion of non-partisan prosecutors whether to make use of it. Last October, the director of public prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, refused. Officials from the PMO then reportedly put Wilson-Raybould under “heavy pressure” to intervene with Roussel; she reportedly refused. A couple of months later she was busted down to Veterans’ Affairs.


The truth of these allegations is suggested not only by Wilson-Raybould’s repeated, on the record, non-denials (the solicitor-client privilege she has invoked may forbid her to confirm incriminating statements by her former clients in government, but not to deny them), but by the prime minister’s own repeated non-denial denials, carefully refuting allegations (he did not “direct” her to intervene) that had not been made.

There remain a number of unanswered questions, to be sure. If Wilson-Raybould was pressured to do something so obviously improper, why is she still in cabinet? On the one hand, why wouldn’t she resign in protest? On the other, why would the PM risk firing her, knowing what she knew? And why would she accept such treatment?

But the scandal here does not lie in its aftermath, but with the original alleged interference. It is hard to overstate how serious a matter this is. It would be bad enough for Wilson-Raybould to have instructed prosecutors on her own, at least without putting her reasons in writing and notifying the public, as the law requires. It would be many times worse for the prime minister or his staff to have pressured her to do so — for any reason, let alone on behalf of a firm whose illegal campaign donations their party had only recently had to return. Prosecutors are supposed to be insulated from political interference for a reason. Put it this way: suppose instead of leaning on the minister to go easy on a friend, the prime minister’s people had wanted her to go after an enemy.

The worst part is it is not clear what can be done even if the worst suspicions prove true
   
At the very least, for the PMO to have intervened in the way alleged would display appalling judgment; at the worst it may count as obstruction of justice. The former Liberal attorney general of Ontario, Michael Bryant, and former judge Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond are among those who believe a crime may have been committed. Certainly it calls into doubt the government’s protestations, in the controversy over the extradition of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, about its devotion to the “rule of law.” It also possibly sheds new light on the murky dealings surrounding the dismissal and prosecution of Vice-Admiral Mark Norman for allegedly leaking cabinet secrets.

The worst part is it is not clear what can be done even if the worst suspicions prove true. The RCMP, embarrassingly for an allegedly mature democracy, have a decidedly spotty record investigating allegations of wrongdoing by their political masters. Neither has Parliament proved particularly effective, in past scandals, at getting to the bottom of something the government of the day wishes to suppress. Those in power seem to have drawn the appropriate conclusions.

Will the pattern be repeated? We’re about to find out whether this really is a country governed by the rule of law at all.

- mod edit to add link to article -


----------



## larry Strong (9 Feb 2019)

AG sees no justification for probe of alleged PMO interference in SNC-Lavalin case

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ag-sees-no-justification-for-probe-of-alleged-pmo-interference-in-snc-lavalin-case-1.4289301



> OTTAWA -- Current Justice Minister and Attorney General David Lametti said there has been no evidence to justify a committee investigation into whether or not Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or anyone in his office tried to have former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould abandon the prosecution of a case against SNC-Lavalin.
> 
> "All we've heard are allegations in a newspaper," Lametti, who replaced Wilson-Raybould when she was shuffled into the Veterans' Affairs portfolio last month, told CTV's Question Period host Evan Solomon.
> 
> ...




Cheers
Larry


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Feb 2019)

After denying knowing Christ three times, Peter broke down, repented and asked for God's forgiveness.

No such luck with a Liberal PM and PMO - or current AG - that doesn't even get that they have sinned.


----------



## Haggis (9 Feb 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> After denying knowing Christ three times, Peter broke down, repented and asked for God's forgiveness.
> 
> No such luck with a Liberal PM and PMO - or current AG - that doesn't even get that they have sinned.



The PM says there was no wrong doing, so there was no wrongdoing.  Deal with it and quit questioning your leader.  You think this is some type of democracy?  :sarcasm:


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Feb 2019)

I've got to be honest, kind of on the fence about the whole root here. Graft and corruption are pretty endemic in a lot of countries, but some are more open about it then others.  I'm okay with holding individuals responsible for it, but given the prevalence of sprawling multinationals and the complicated nature of corporations, banning companies from all federal bidding as a result seems a bit heavy handed.  Are you looking at only the specific arm that did the deed, or do you apply it to the parent corporation and everything under the umbrella?

I don't think you'd have to poke to hard to come up with similar instances on any multinational, and given how small the pool is, you could probably disqualify all defence contractors that work outside of Canada if you used this as a sledgehammer.  In this case the SNC folks that work on MWAV do a pretty good job, and are pretty far down the food chain from who was convicted.  Does it make any practical sense to say they can't do future work for the RCN to virtue signal?

Just wish they'd have the intestinal fortitude to be honest about this one.  Their PR and spin is usually much better too, so this whole thing is a bit of a mess.  I don't think it would make sense to ban SNC from all GoC procurement, but if the legislation is a bit too broad or doesn't make sense, make a decision, explain why publicly, and fix the legislation. These clowns and their focus on appearance are their own worst enemies; they keep hiding this kind of stuff or do other backroom shenanigans to protect their 'brand' and it is blowing up on them. I think they'd be better off making an unpopular decision, riding through any short term pain, and go from there.  People that are against them already won't change their opinions, but this kind of stuff alienates their own crowd, as well as the mass of unaffiliated voters that don't go with any particular party.


----------



## ballz (9 Feb 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I've got to be honest, kind of on the fence about the whole root here.



i don't get your post, I think you missed the root here... this controversy is not about the fate of SNC, or whether or not the legislation they are facing is good/bad/ugly and could/should be changed, which is what most of your post seems to be about.

The issue here is political interference in the justice system, aka Russia / China / and a whole other host of countries we don't want to be like, which is why we try and safeguard the independence of the judiciary system. It wouldn't matter if this was about political interference in the SNC case, the VCDS case (which there is already plenty of doubt about whether or not there was), or whether it was political interference in a charge of theft under $5000 against a homeless person...


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Feb 2019)

And here we go again with the game winning formula of Liberals, corruption and one or two Quebec companies. I’m no fan of JT, but one would think they would be astute enough to stay away from these things. Does Chrétien’s law firm represent SNC?

Edit: the answer is yes: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/the-law-page/prominent-tax-lawyer-charged-in-snc-lavalin-scandal/article20522424/

https://www.dentons.com/en/jean-chretien


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Feb 2019)

> "All we've heard are allegations in a newspaper," Lametti, who replaced Wilson-Raybould when she was shuffled into the Veterans' Affairs portfolio last month, told CTV's Question Period host Evan Solomon. "The prime minister has said that these allegations are false. We haven't had any corroborating evidence there. There hasn't been anything to my mind that justifies a committee investigation."
> 
> Despite this stated view, Lametti said that "it's up to the committee to do what it wants to do."




House Justice Committee: 6 Liberals, 3 Conservatives, and 1 NDP. How do you think they will vote?


> Among the staffers that the Conservatives and NDP want to hear from at the committee: Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Gerald Butts; Senior Advisors Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard; and Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff Jessica Prince.



Anyway, testifying under oath doesn't mean you get the truth.


----------



## Navy_Pete (9 Feb 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> i don't get your post, I think you missed the root here... this controversy is not about the fate of SNC, or whether or not the legislation they are facing is good/bad/ugly and could/should be changed, which is what most of your post seems to be about.
> 
> The issue here is political interference in the justice system, aka Russia / China / and a whole other host of countries we don't want to be like, which is why we try and safeguard the independence of the judiciary system. It wouldn't matter if this was about political interference in the SNC case, the VCDS case (which there is already plenty of doubt about whether or not there was), or whether it was political interference in a charge of theft under $5000 against a homeless person...



Sorry I wasn't clear, I meant I was on the fence about the issue of whether or not SNC should be allowed to bid on future contracts (as a result of the CEO being convicted of bribery in Libya).

The political interference in the justice system is verbotten for a reason (similarly they shouldn't have commented on the outcome of the Colton Bushie case specifically). 

In this case though, if they looked at the legislation around procurement ethic rules, looked at the impact, decided they didn't like it, they should have made the decision publicly and amended the legislation, vice this backdoor silliness. Reviewing/updating something when it hits the practical realities of the world is what any responsible policy maker should do, but they keep trying to backdoor it.

The people that come up with those kinds of policies are generally ivory tower policy wonks without any real business acumen, so this is another example of where the policy intent may have an outsized impact during procurement. Sometimes they don't anticipate/appreciate the impact of legislation and something comes across they may not like. That's why a process exists to allow legislation to be amended/updated.

The VAdm prosecution is a different kind of bad where they are using their power and influence to punish someone via the justice system, and heads should roll for that. The SNC situation also stinks, but it's a good example of a party that used 'transparent and open government' as a buzzword for election doing the opposite.

Does seem like a pretty immediate karmic balance though.  They fired the former AG, tried to spin it like it wasn't a downgrade, then are almost immediately bit on the arse. Seems pretty feckless to expect people to cover for you after you discard them.


----------



## brihard (9 Feb 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Does seem like a pretty immediate karmic balance though.  They fired the former AG, tried to spin it like it wasn't a downgrade, then are almost immediately bit on the arse. Seems pretty feckless to expect people to cover for you after you discard them.



Are we taking bets on when she crosses the floor? She could do so while continuing to primly (and accurately) cliam solicitor-client privilege- and that would speak volumes. She would be an instantly valued member of the CPC, and could potentially tip an election that is suddenly more open to contention than it was a few days ago.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Feb 2019)

Not sure the CPC would trust her enough. plus I think she may come out of this as the only one not covered in poop. If this takes down JT the Liberal party may need her to rebuild.


----------



## Journeyman (10 Feb 2019)

Regrettably, I suspect that some people are rubbing their hands too gleefully, ignoring Canadian's disinterest in most things political … except for some niche groups with a personal interest -- pipelines, defence procurement, aboriginal apologies, etc;  governmental ethics doesn't seem to have a strong constituency.  

I'd be surprised if this doesn't become a forgotten tempest in a teapot to all except for some diminishingly reported upon Opposition politicians.  Your average Canadian will once again be transfixed by the latest 'roll up the rim.'

Sad, but my  :2c: nonetheless.


----------



## Remius (10 Feb 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Regrettably, I suspect that some people are rubbing their hands too gleefully, ignoring Canadian's disinterest in most things political … except for some niche groups with a personal interest -- pipelines, defence procurement, aboriginal apologies, etc;  governmental ethics doesn't seem to have a strong constituency.
> 
> I'd be surprised if this doesn't become a forgotten tempest in a teapot to all except for some diminishingly reported upon Opposition politicians.  Your average Canadian will once again be transfixed by the latest 'roll up the rim.'
> 
> Sad, but my  :2c: nonetheless.



Your 2c is pretty accurate.  I doubt this will take down the LPC.  A few more things like this might but this in particular won’t.  Also she’d likely sit as an independant before crossing if anything.  Her salary as a minister would be hard to give up...


----------



## suffolkowner (10 Feb 2019)

I'm curious why we don't see in Canadian politics more caucus revolts like our Australian friends. Our political party leaders being elected from the general membership and then the caucus gets stuck with maybe an inferior "boss" and PMO. Party discipline just seems extremely strong here even at the expense of future party success. I can see the Liberal party being reduced to a minority in the next election as some of the mushy movable vote switching back to the Conservatives plus the youth vote might not come out as strong with pot already legal


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Feb 2019)

A week is a long time in politics.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Feb 2019)

suffolkowner said:
			
		

> I'm curious why we don't see in Canadian politics more caucus revolts like our Australian friends. Our political party leaders being elected from the general membership and then the caucus gets stuck with maybe an inferior "boss" and PMO. Party discipline just seems extremely strong here even at the expense of future party success. I can see the Liberal party being reduced to a minority in the next election as some of the mushy movable vote switching back to the Conservatives plus the youth vote might not come out as strong with pot already legal



I wonder if Canada hasn't been "leading" the Commonwealth in Party Politics while Australia has been "clinging" to the older traditions of Westminster.  In Britain it is only now that Westminster is fully confronting the difference between a Parliamentary Party and an Extra-Parliamentary Party.

The Liberals and Conservatives in Britain were both essentially Parliamentary Parties with the members being "democratically" elected by extra-parliamentary supporters and then being allowed by those supporters to freely and independently elect their own leaders in the House.

Labour has always been different because it was an extra-parliamentary party whose battle-cry was, to paraphrase Preston Manning, "the workers want in"; the god-fearing, nationalist, monarchy supporting members of the Co-Op movements, the Masons and the Unions.

That has always produced a tension between the Parliamentary Party, forced to abide by the traditions of the House, and the Extra-Parliamentary Party, demanding that their voices be heard, and their opinions directly reflected, in the House.

Up until Tony Blair the balance favoured the traditions of the House.  But Tony blew up the House and his own Labour Party and shifted the balance to the Extra-Parliamentary Party which has resulted in Jeremy Corbyn drawing his legitimacy from fee paying party members while being despised by the Parliamentary Party and considered, at best, dubious by voters who have traditionally elected Labour MPs.

The Conservative Party in the UK is facing the same problem of managing its fee paying members, its MPs and the voting public.

I suggest that in Canada, that Extra-Parliamentary Party element predates that of Britain and finds its original expression in The Family Compact and the Chateau Clique - now commonly known as the Laurentian Elite.  People who have grown up in the shade of Scots Episcopalian Bishop Strachan and the Bishops of Quebec - people who disagreed vehemently on Religion but ultimately agreed on the need for a directed, ordered, top-down, corporatist society to deliver Peace, Order and Good Governance.  In Canada they could exert an influence over a small population that their brothers and cousins in Britain were denied.

Britain is, in many ways, especially since joining the EU, "catching up" to Canada, by abandoning its free-booting liberal past to join the corporatist model prevalent in the EU and Canada.

The difference between Canada and Australia is, I think, bred in the bone.  We got the good kids that sat at the front of the class.  The Aussies got the kids that sat at the back, were regularly suspended, occasionally expelled and didn't give  a toss for rules and elites.

In Canada the closest we came to "radicals" were William Lyon MacKenzie and George Brown.  Interestingly it took Mackenzie's grandson, MacKenzie King to create the modern Liberal Party of Canada which put a radical veneer on a corporatist party centred on Montreal's Golden Square Mile - which married Scots businessmen with the Ancien Regime Seigneury.  That union found its ultimate expression in Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Scots mother, French father).  Curiously Justin is a Scots-French mix as well - Margaret Sinclair's father, a Liberal from Vancouver, was born in Scotland.

Our governing system looks more like what the EU aspires to - where most of the moves are made off the chess board of the House.  

The EU is holding up the current open debate in Britain about Brexit, and the involvement of the people, the courts, the press and parliament, as an example of the chaos that results from democracy and is to be avoided at all costs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Feb 2019)

Our system is becoming mostly a 1 person dictatorship for 4 years with the PMO running everything, I like to see the majority party MP's have more power over the PM.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Regrettably, I suspect that some people are rubbing their hands too gleefully, ignoring Canadian's disinterest in most things political … except for some niche groups with a personal interest -- pipelines, defence procurement, aboriginal apologies, etc;  governmental ethics doesn't seem to have a strong constituency.
> 
> I'd be surprised if this doesn't become a forgotten tempest in a teapot to all except for some diminishingly reported upon Opposition politicians.  Your average Canadian will once again be transfixed by the latest 'roll up the rim.'
> 
> Sad, but my  :2c: nonetheless.



Any day now we'll get a "but Scheer hates the gay abortionists" tweet from someone high up in the gov, and SNC will quietly slip below the horizon.


----------



## Remius (11 Feb 2019)

Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> Any day now we'll get a "but Scheer hates the gay abortionists" tweet from someone high up in the gov, and SNC will quietly slip below the horizon.



TBH if history is any indicator we'll have the CPC step on its own d**k and the channel will change.


----------



## Kat Stevens (11 Feb 2019)

Veeery interesting, Klink. It's starting to pile up, it seems.   https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-davie-shipyard-breach-trust-1.5014538?cmp=rss&fbclid=IwAR3IF3lNQN5ftowxUraPxQ0eZPQ0GUzzAPW3brTD754hoWJD1Xj6KPbcf-0


----------



## dapaterson (11 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> TBH if history is any indicator we'll have the CPC step on its own d**k and the channel will change.



You mean like the article on the weekend stating that Scheer has also gone to chat with SNC about their prosecution?

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/02/10/tory-leader-andrew-scheer-met-with-snc-chief-to-discuss-criminal-charges.html



> Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer met with the head of SNC-Lavalin in May 2018 to discuss criminal charges facing the Quebec construction giant.
> 
> Scheer’s office confirmed the Conservative leader discussed the “deferred prosecution agreement” sought by SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal fraud and corruption charges. The meeting with SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce took place last May 29, months after the Liberal government introduced so-called “DPAs” in its omnibus budget bill.


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Feb 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You mean like the article on the weekend stating that Scheer has also gone to chat with SNC about their prosecution?
> 
> https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/02/10/tory-leader-andrew-scheer-met-with-snc-chief-to-discuss-criminal-charges.html



If that article isn't evidence of the media desperately trying to help the Liberals, I don't know what is. Scheer didn't hide a provision in an omnibus budget (that he campaigned on not using), and then allegedly fire his AG after trying to pressure her to use that provision illegally to help a company that funneled $100K in illegal donations to his party to help his election.  :facepalm:


----------



## Infanteer (11 Feb 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If that article isn't evidence of the media desperately trying to help the Liberals, I don't know what is.



Well, you are looking at the Star.  Go the National Post, and the pitchforks are out.


----------



## Stoker (11 Feb 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> If that article isn't evidence of the media desperately trying to help the Liberals, I don't know what is. Scheer didn't hide a provision in an omnibus budget (that he campaigned on not using), and then allegedly fire his AG after trying to pressure her to use that provision illegally to help a company that funneled $100K in illegal donations to his party to help his election.  :facepalm:



Now if that reporter just comes forward and recounts what really happened during that interview that would be a cherry on the top.


----------



## ballz (11 Feb 2019)

I'm starting to the think the Liberals know they can do whatever they want and they'll be making no apologies about it...


----------



## PuckChaser (11 Feb 2019)

Split this stuff into its own topic, as I'm sure the approval ratings thread will get more bumps as we get closer to the election cycle.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Feb 2019)

> Quote from: PuckChaser on Yesterday at 15:57:53
> If that article isn't evidence of the media desperately trying to help the Liberals, I don't know what is. Scheer didn't hide a provision in an* omnibus budget* (that he campaigned on not using), and then allegedly fire his AG after trying to pressure her to use that provision illegally to help a company that funneled $100K in illegal donations to his party to help his election.


  

The Bill was a Finance Minister bill, not Justice. More than enough to be suspicions why the Criminal Code change was "hidden" inside the omnibus budget bill.

This was a strategic move by the Liberals. The amendment to the CC took months to conceive, write and pass through Parliament. If there was no change to the CC, there was no reason to supposedly lobby the Justice Minister.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Feb 2019)

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190212/textview

*Still waiting for clear denials* - National Post - 12 Feb 19 - ANDREW COYNE - Comment

It has been four days now since it was reported that officials in the Prime Minister’s Office had pressured the former attorney-general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, to have fraud and corruption charges dropped against SNC-Lavalin, the Quebec engineering and construction giant, and we have yet to hear a direct, on-the-record denial of the allegations by either side.

We’ve had Justin Trudeau’s initial, lawyerly statement to the effect that he did not “direct” Wilson-Raybould to do anything — which was not the allegation — and we’ve had Wilson-Raybould’s repeated claim that “solicitor-client privilege” prevented her from commenting — which legal scholars dispute — and now we have the prime minister’s assertion that Wilson-Raybould lately “confirmed” for him a conversation they had last fall “where I told her directly that any decisions on matters involving the director of public prosecutions were hers alone.” That odd, selective, onesided recounting of what she allegedly said about what he allegedly said that shouldn’t have needed saying in the first place is the closest we’ve got in four days to a straight answer. But while all this line-testing, story-straightening and general dodging about was going on in public, the prime minister’s people were speaking quite freely — off the record.

Why yes, of course there had been “discussions” with Wilson-Raybould about whether to set aside the charges against SNC-Lavalin, senior government officials confided to reporters, in favour of a newly created process called a “remediation agreement.” Indeed, they told Canadian Press the government “would have failed in its duty” if it had not had such discussions “given that a prosecution could bankrupt the company and put thousands of Canadians out of work.” There might have been a “vigorous debate” or even a “robust discussion,” senior government officials acknowledged to the Globe and Mail, but that should not be confused with “an effort to put pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould.” How did she get that idea, then, as multiple sources told the paper four days earlier? Was she confused?

Well, unnamed “insiders” volunteered to CP, she was “difficult to get along with,” and had “always sort of been in it for herself.” But not to worry, a Toronto Star columnist reported: the prime minister “still has confidence” in her, notwithstanding the “damage” she was doing to the government “by allowing the speculation about alleged corruption to hang out there.” Beautiful. The PM’s spin doctors have managed to turn a story about their own alleged attempts to interfere in the prosecution of a Liberal-friendly firm (from 1993 to 2003 SNC-Lavalin contributed over a half a million dollars to the party, Elections Canada records show, plus another hundred thousand and change in illegal donations, as the company has acknowledged, in 2004-2011) into a story about whether a “difficult” minister was harming the government with her silence.

Very well. Let’s take the government’s emerging defence on its merits. Is this all perfectly normal? Is it quite all right, first, for a government to want to spare a corporation from criminal charges because it might go out of business? Let’s be clear: this would not be an issue if the corporation employed nine people, rather than nine thousand. The argument — the official story, that is, never mind questions of political connections or how it would all play in Quebec — is that SNC-Lavalin deserves preferential treatment because it is so big: because of the “thousands of jobs” that would allegedly be lost if it were to be submitted to the ordinary processes of law. As an argument for two-tiered justice, this at least has the virtue of being frank.

The company claims it should be spared prosecution because it has changed personnel and overhauled its corporate culture since the days when it was notorious for bribing public officials to win contracts, around the world and in Canada. But it’s surely worth noting that it was under the bad old corporate culture that the company grew into the colossus it is today. The practices for which it now asks to avoid charges, on the grounds that it is too big to fail, are the very sorts of practices that helped make it so big. Is there a more literal application of the old joke about the kid who kills his parents, then asks for leniency on the grounds that he’s an orphan?

I don’t want to be too firm on this point. Maybe there’s a case for remediation agreements of this kind, in principle — after all, the United States and Britain have them. But there’s a context here that can’t be ignored. *The only reason the provision is on the books in Canada is because of a concerted public relations campaign on the part of SNC-Lavalin. Charged with fraud and corruption in 2015, the company reacted, not in the usual way, by fighting it in court or bargaining with prosecutors, but by lobbying politicians and their staff.
*
And it worked:* the government custom-drafted the legislation to the designs of a company that was at that moment facing criminal charges, then smuggled it into law via the 2018 omnibus budget bill, of all things.* And, when the director of public prosecutions, as is her right, declined to make use of the new provision, preferring to proceed in the old-fashioned way, the prime minister’s office allegedly leaned on the attorney general to overrule her.

To be sure, there is nothing illegal or unethical for the attorney general, as a government background document notes, “to consult with cabinet colleagues before exercising his or her powers.” But that is not what is alleged. Whether or not the line was crossed into “pressure,” the alleged conversation was not with her fellow ministers — her equals — but with political staff in the Prime Minister’s Office, the most powerful people in the country. Next to the prime minister, of course.

That at any rate is the allegation. It has still not been properly denied. It would seem worth investigating why.


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

Just breaking now- Jody Wilson-Raybould has resigned from cabinet. This is about to get very interesting...


----------



## Remius (12 Feb 2019)

No kidding.  Not a good start to an election year lol.


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

She has also retained counsel for advice on what she can and can talk about, so it looks like she intends to once her ducks are in a row. The lawyer's no slouch, either- eight years as a Supreme Court justice. Get your popcorn out, kids.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Feb 2019)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/jody-wilson-raybould-resigns-from-trudeau-cabinet-1.4293529


> OTTAWA – Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has resigned from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet.
> 
> This comes amid ongoing questions about into whether Trudeau or anyone in his office tried to have Wilson-Raybould abandon the prosecution of a case against SNC-Lavalin when she was justice minister and attorney general.
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has called an emergency cabinet meeting for Tuesday morning, though most ministers are in their ridings or fanned out across the country, so many will be teleconferencing in and not all together around the cabinet table in Ottawa.



I'm guessing it's over SNC. Is she trying to create space between herself and the PMO?

More here: https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/02/11/pmo-interference-working-title/187968


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Just breaking now- Jody Wilson-Raybould has resigned from cabinet. This is about to get very interesting...





			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> She has also retained counsel for advice on what she can and can talk about, so it looks like she intends to once her ducks are in a row. The lawyer's no slouch, either- eight years as a Supreme Court justice. Get your popcorn out, kids.


Good catch -- here's her letter (source).
op: indeed ...


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2019)

Can you imagine the tension in both Parties war rooms right now?  Will she, won't she....happened, didn't happen,... scream to the press, ask to respect her privacy?  Popcorn  time is right....


----------



## meni0n (12 Feb 2019)

Talk about shooting yourself in the foot in front of the Chinese. Imagine what kind of optics this is projecting internationally.


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> She has also retained counsel for advice on what she can and can talk about, so it looks like she intends to once her ducks are in a row. The lawyer's no slouch, either- eight years as a Supreme Court justice. Get your popcorn out, kids.



I hear it's a good sign when your former lawyer gets a heavy hitting lawyer for advice on what to do with you....  op: op: op:


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Feb 2019)

Is she going to be the Michael Cohen of the North?  Time for the PMO to start tweeting "Fake News" and have some Make Corruption Great Again hats.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (12 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Is she going to be the Michael Cohen of the North?  Time for the PMO to start tweeting "Fake News" and have some Make Corruption Great Again hats.


 :rofl: :rofl:
And nothing but net for the win!!! ;D


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Is she going to be the Michael Cohen of the North?  Time for the PMO to start tweeting "Fake News" and have some Make Corruption Great Again hats.



No. She will speak to this issue enough of what she can speak about to preserve her own integrity, to cement her reputation as a straight shooter, and also to show that she still possesses enough discretion and good sense to be very valuable to the CPC. She's not going to burn down the house on the way out because that impacts the CPC's risk calculation if they bring her onboard. She will cover her own butt, and more pointedly will not cover PMJT's.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Feb 2019)

Of course she will.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I hear it's a good sign when your former lawyer gets a heavy hitting lawyer for advice on what to do with you....  op: op: op:


 :nod:

For the record, here's the bio of the jilted lawyer's lawyer.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> ... show that she still possesses enough discretion and good sense to be very valuable to the CPC. She's not going to burn down the house on the way out because that impacts the CPC's risk calculation if they bring her onboard ...


I agree with your read on her calculus, but I'd be very surprised to see her move to Team Blue.  I've been wrong before, but I don't see her aching for that end of the political spectrum.  Also, if it's true that she's willing to speak the truth to Team Red power, that wouldn't necessarily change much working for Team Blue.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Feb 2019)

Award for the best ill timed comments.

PM Trudeau in BC yesterday:


> "She confirmed for me a conversation we had this fall, where I told her directly that any decisions on matters involving the director of public prosecutions were hers alone," Trudeau said Monday.
> 
> "I respect her view that, due to privilege, she can't comment or add on matters recently before the media. I also highlight that we're bound by cabinet confidentiality. In our system of governance, her presence in cabinet should speak for itself."



A couple keys that may have peeved the ex Minister - "she confirmed", "I told her directly....decisions....hers alone", "due to privilege, she can't comment",  and "we're bound by cabinet confidentially".

Then the really ill timed - "In our system of governance, her presence in cabinet should speak for itself."


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Is she going to be the Michael Cohen of the North?  Time for the PMO to start tweeting "Fake News" and have some Make Corruption Great Again hats.



Michael Cohen but actually credible.

The former AG is almost beyond reproach in how she's handled the situation thus far.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Then the really ill timed - _*"In our system of governance, her presence in cabinet should speak for itself."*_


For as long as said presence _lasted_, anyway.  #StrawThatBrokeTheCamelsBack?


----------



## brihard (12 Feb 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I agree with your read on her calculus, but I'd be very surprised to see her move to Team Blue.  I've been wrong before, but I don't see her aching for that end of the political spectrum.  Also, if it's true that she's willing to speak the truth to Team Red power, that wouldn't necessarily change much working for Team Blue.



You could be right... It'll be interesting. Scheer has a presser soon, maybe there's something coming. The house doesn't sit again til next Tuesday.

While I would understand her not being naturally inclined to the CPC, her time in government and at a senior level has probably shifted her perspective somewhat. It also depends on her personal ambition. To stay relevant in federal politics, at this point that can only mean the CPC. She's done with the LPC, there's no coming back from this. BC doesn't have a provincial election for another couple of years yet.

I think it also depends on what her read is on how the next election will go. If we're seeing the start of a pre-election LPC implosion (I'm not yet convinced we are, but she knows much more than I), she might see crossing as a necessity, in the interest of her own future, and in the interest of getting a First Nations voice solidly and prominently into the CPC.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ... she might see crossing as a necessity, in the interest of her own future, and in the interest of getting a First Nations voice solidly and prominently into the CPC.


On the bit in yellow, I keep forgetting we're talking about _Homo Politicus_ no matter what party they're in, so future positioning is a factor.

Well, based on at least some recent events, Team Blue could use some boost in that area, especially now that anti-PMJT memes sometimes include "why aren't First Nations getting clean water?"

Here's the latest out of Team Blue on this one:


> The Honourable Andrew Scheer, Leader of Canada’s Conservatives and the Official Opposition today called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to preserve all documents relating to the ongoing SNC-Lavalin Affair after the cabinet resignation of Jody Wilson-Raybould.
> 
> In a letter sent to Trudeau this afternoon, Scheer called on him to ensure all documents including “memos, letters, emails, pins, SMS messages, and handwritten notes” pertaining to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin be preserved amidst the pending cabinet shuffle to replace Ms. Wilson-Raybould.
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Feb 2019)

I would still wager that with all of this, the 2019 election is still for JT to lose, not for the CPC to win. She could move to an independent status, in fact she probably should, just to twist the knife a little more.


----------



## PuckChaser (12 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I would still wager that with all of this, the 2019 election is still for JT to lose, not for the CPC to win. She could move to an independent status, in fact she probably should, just to twist the knife a little more.



Independent does the most damage to the Trudeau Liberals. It solidifies that the decision she made was to uphold the rule of law and completely non-partisan. If she crosses the floor to any party, it can be spun as her being disgruntled at the "demotion" (I hate calling the MVA as a demotion), and therefore she shouldn't be believed.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Feb 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ...For the record, here's the bio of the jilted lawyer's lawyer.



Interesting excerpt from his bio regarding ‘Community Involvement’...

“ • Mentor, Trudeau Foundation”


Perhaps “• Past Mentor, Trudeau Foundation” in the future?

Regards
G2G


----------



## vonGarvin (12 Feb 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> (I hate calling the MVA as a demotion),


[tangent]
But it _is_ a demotion. There are roughly 650,000 veterans in Canada.  There are roughly 36,700,000 Canadians.  That is roughly 1.77% of the general population.  It may be an _important_ portfolio, which is why there is a cabinet minister at the top, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it's a senior cabinet post.
[/tangent]


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Feb 2019)

It’s like Trump University, only sunnier.


----------



## Petard (13 Feb 2019)

I wonder why little attention has been given to why the Prosecution Service of Canada does not want to use a DPA for the SNC Lavalin case, this seems to be the crux of the latest controversy.  The only indication I could find, on why PPSC is continuing to prosecute, is in articles like the one below from last Oct. It looks like SNC’s definition of what reparations were due as part of an DPA did not meet the criminal code of Canada’s definition of it. Not long after that SNC began meeting again with PMO staff

The pattern here looks like SNC expected to dictate what the terms of the DPA were to be, didn’t get its way and sought influence with the PM. Lately the “we’re too big to fail” and the impact on jobs this has, is also being yarded out in the news. These efforts seem to be designed to steer public opinion towards a DPA that minimizes the effect on SNC’s business





https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/snc-lavalin-federal-prosecutors-wont-negotiate-a-deal-company-may-appeal


----------



## Loachman (13 Feb 2019)

I cannot see this one dying down quickly. There is chum in the water, and no media outlet - including CBC and the Toronto Star - can afford to be left out of the feeding frenzy at this point.

The layout of the front page of today's Globe and Mail was quite interesting.

https://www.thewhig.com/opinion/john-ivison-just-another-day-at-the-office-for-a-government-that-looks-increasingly-grubby/wcm/428f63df-c4c0-4fa1-a03d-e15b0d3a22b9

John Ivison: Just another day at the office for a government that looks increasingly grubby

It is incontrovertible that Trudeau gave Wilson-Raybould the hook after she refused to do his bidding. Instead of doing politics differently, he has proven to be as vindictive

Published on: February 12, 2019

In the words of parody news anchor Ron Burgundy: “Boy, that escalated quickly.”

Jody Wilson-Raybould’s letter resigning from cabinet Tuesday - in which she thanked all Canadians but, conspicuously, not Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - has left the impression that we have a caricature of a government, as buffoonish and clueless as Burgundy and his news team.

Trudeau, a self-proclaimed feminist, appears to have been mansplaining when he said Wilson-Raybould’s presence in cabinet “should speak for itself.” A matter of hours later, the former justice minister tendered her resignation, which really does speak for itself. She obviously did not agree with Trudeau’s characterization of events Monday, when he said Wilson-Raybould had confirmed to him that in their conversation about SNC-Lavalin in the fall, the prime minister had told her any decision involving the director of public prosecutions was hers alone. Did Trudeau let Wilson-Raybould in on how he was going to characterize that conversation? Apparently not.

Events are rapidly spinning out of control and Trudeau looks like a prime minister who acts impetuously and fails to think through the consequences of his actions.

The Liberals clearly felt they had contained the fallout from the allegations, first reported Thursday by the Globe and Mail, that the Prime Minister’s Office pressured Wilson-Raybould to intervene in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

David Lametti, Wilson-Raybould’s successor as attorney general and justice minister, told the Canadian Bar Association Monday that, while he sits at a certain distance from his cabinet colleagues, he does not sit in isolation. “But there is a line that cannot be crossed. Telling the Attorney-General what a decision ought to be: that would be interference.”

Lametti believes the government in which he sits was on the right side of that line.

<snip>

Prior to Wilson-Raybould’s bombshell resignation, it was a safe bet no one would be able to prove anyone in the PMO crossed the line Lametti described.

There must have been high hopes that Wilson-Raybould would stick to the script.

After all, she had accepted another cabinet post, even while apparently being demoted for not doing her boss’s bidding on SNC.

But in her resignation letter she said she has retained retired Supreme Court justice Thomas Cromwell as counsel, seeking guidance on what she can say publicly. This affair might have been starved of oxygen without fresh information but not now.

<snip>

You don’t resign from cabinet, with its $82,000 salary top-up and chauffeur-driven car, unless you are seriously aggrieved.

https://canadanewsmedia.ca/2019/02/12/wilson-rayboulds-departure-is-a-calamity-for-trudeaus-liberals-the-globe-and-mail/

Wilson-Raybould's departure is a calamity for Trudeau's Liberals – The Globe and Mail

Published on February 12, 2019

“Government by cabinet is back,” Justin Trudeau promised on his sunny first day as Prime Minister in November, 2015. But Mr. Trudeau broke that promise. Instead, he allowed a close circle of unelected advisers to direct, control and even bully cabinet ministers and MPs alike. On Tuesday, the government paid the price. ​

Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation is a calamity for the Liberals. For one thing, she has made Mr. Trudeau look like a fool. Less than 24 hours earlier, he had expressed full confidence in the minister, saying “her presence in cabinet should actually speak for itself.” Her resignation hours later spoke louder.

For another, her departure is politically damaging. Past governments have been crippled by cabinet ministers who resigned in protest. Pierre Trudeau lost the next election after his finance minister, John Turner, quit over personal and policy disagreements. Brian Mulroney’s government was crippled by the defection of Lucien Bouchard after the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s resignation could be just as damaging. For one thing, her decision appears to confirm that officials in the Prime Minister’s Office put pressure on her to cut a deal with SNC-Lavalin, which faces corruption charges, and then removed her from the Justice portfolio when she refused. This from a government that trumpets its scrupulous observance of the rule of law.

The fact that she stood up to the Prime Minister’s advisers, and was punished for it, undermines Liberal claims that women are equal and respected within the government. The resignation of the first Indigenous person to serve as justice minister also tarnishes the government’s record on Indigenous issues.

And perhaps the saddest thing of all: The next Minister of Veterans Affairs will be the fourth appointed by this government, underscoring the low value placed on the portfolio, and on the needs of veterans.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould would certainly have been effective, had she remained in her new job. As justice minister, she implemented two of this government’s most important achievements: assisted-dying legislation, and the legalization of marijuana. (While important to some, those are hardly important in real terms so, really, not much has been achieved at all - Loachman)

<snip>

We are only at the beginning of this affair. The reason for Ms. Raybould-Wilson’s resignation will crowd every other item off the political agenda for who-knows-how-long. The standing committee on Justice simply must take up the issue when it meets on Wednesday. If it doesn’t, if the Liberal MPs on the committee obstruct an investigation, that will only reinforce the impression that they are under the thumb of the PMO.

We are so far from Mr. Trudeau’s promise to reverse decades of ever-greater concentration of power in the Prime Minister’s Office. “Actually, it can be traced as far back as my father, who kicked it off in the first place,” Mr. Trudeau told the CBC’s Peter Mansbridge during the election campaign. “I actually quite like the symmetry of me being the one who ends that.”

“As you can imagine, I took a strong interest in that commitment,” said Donald Savoie, a political scientist at University of Moncton who has written extensively on the concentration of power within government. “If anything he has strengthened governing from the Centre,” he said in an e-mail exchange.

From the start, Mr. Trudeau’s advisers, especially his principal secretary and close personal friend, Gerald Butts, exercised tight control over a cabinet filled with rookies, including Ms. Wilson-Raybould. Few ministers were willing to stand up to the directives that routinely came their way from the PMO.

But Ms. Wilson-Raybould earned a reputation for pushing back. She is strong-willed, accustomed to getting her way and impossible to bully. Her unwillingness to defer in the SNC-Lavalin affair may have led to her demotion from Justice to Veterans Affairs and ultimately to her resignation.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorials/2019/02/12/the-damage-already-done-by-jody-wilson-rayboulds-resignation.html

The damage already done by Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation

By Star Editorial Board Tues., Feb. 12, 2019

When the history of our political times is written, the decision last month to take the prestigious justice ministry from Jody Wilson-Raybould may go down as the Trudeau government’s most calamitous mistake.

<snip>

This self-inflicted bungle undermines the government’s professed principles and values all along the line. There is undoubtedly more to come in this affair, but consider the damage that has already been inflicted:

- Trudeau’s image as a feminist leader is shaken. Allowing unidentified Liberals to undermine Wilson-Raybould’s credibility by talking trash about her was bound to be seen as sexist — even among other Liberals. Not a good look for this famously female-friendly prime minister.

- The government’s claim to make Indigenous issues a top priority has also taken a huge hit. Sidelining an Indigenous woman was hugely symbolic. Her father, a hereditary First Nations chief in British Columbia, says she was “kicked in the teeth” when she was ousted from justice. Other First Nations leaders there denounce the language used about her as “racist and sexist.” That hurts.

- Trudeau’s promise back in 2015 to junk the old politics of backroom dealing is looking decidedly faded. Could there be anything more old-style than a big, well-connected Quebec company angling behind the scenes for favourable treatment in a messy legal affair? Yet that’s exactly what SNC-Lavalin was by all accounts busy doing last year while Wilson-Raybould was justice minister and attorney general.

- Likewise, the Liberals’ promise to run a more open government and break the grip of the Prime Minister’s Office hasn’t aged at all well. The central allegation in this affair is that Wilson-Raybould came under undue pressure from the PMO to give SNC-Lavalin a break and suffered the political consequences when she proved insufficiently flexible. 

- Worst of all, the suspicion of political interference, or even a botched attempt at political interference, in an important legal matter raises questions about the government’s claim to uphold the rule of law.

<snip>

Likewise, the prime minister should be prepared to answer questions and should authorize his senior officials to do the same before a parliamentary committee. On Tuesday he proclaimed that the government “did its job” and followed the rules in the SNC-Lavalin affair. If the government truly believes it did nothing wrong, it should welcome a chance to clear the air. And with the clock ticking down to an election, better to get to it as soon as possible.

https://globalnews.ca/news/4955235/jody-wilson-raybould-liberal-support/

Some Liberals boost Jody Wilson-Raybould after she resigned from cabinet

By Jesse Ferreras

February 13, 2019 12:28 am

Some Liberal MPs are showing support and even praising ex-justice and veterans affairs minister Jody Wilson-Raybould after she announced her resignation from cabinet on Tuesday.

<snip>

Treasury Board President Jane Philpott tweeted praise for Wilson-Raybould on Tuesday night, saying that she “taught me so much - particularly about Indigenous history, rights and justice.”

Philpott said she was “proud of the laws that we worked on together.”

<snip>

John McCallum, a former Liberal cabinet minister whom Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fired as ambassador to China in January, sent along his own praise for both Wilson-Raybould and Philpott.

<snip>

Whitby MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes, meanwhile, has shown clear support for Wilson-Raybould.

She supported her when The Globe and Mail reported that the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) asked Wilson-Raybould to cut a deal and help Quebec engineering giant SNC-Lavalin avoid a trial on corruption and fraud charges.

Trudeau said the allegations in that story were false.

"As someone on the inside, who knows @Puglaas, I can tell you that she is fierce, smart and unapologetic. When women speak up and out, they are always going to be labelled. Go ahead. Label away. We are not going anywhere. #IAmWithHer #StandUp #ISeeYou https://t.co/BQWeiitn9R"

- MP Celina 🇨🇦 (@MPCelina) February 11, 2019

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/snc-lavalin-1.5016947

The SNC-Lavalin affair offers the bingo of betrayed Liberal commitments: Robyn Urback

It has shown the government to be as cynical, partisan and calculating as its predecessors

Robyn Urback CBC News Posted: Feb 13, 2019 4:00 AM ET

The destructive power of the SNC-Lavalin scandal - of which we appear to still be in the early stages - lies in its sheer comprehensiveness. It is not simply an indictment of the Liberals' professed commitment to transparency. Or of the illusion of a shift away from Harper-era "self-serving" partisanship. Or of the Trudeau government's prophetic waxing about the principles of feminism, goodness and positivity.

It is, rather, all of those things: A bingo of betrayed commitments, wrapped in a package of a classic Liberal scandal.The Prime Minister's Office is alleged to have pressured the attorney general to drop the criminal prosecution of a Quebec engineering company steeped in scandal and facing fraud and corruption charges. Hello, old friend. Haven't seen you in a while.

<snip>

But the SNC-Lavalin affair, convoluted and esoteric as it may be, cuts to the core of the Liberals' central promise from back in 2015: That this government would be different in specific, measurable ways. It just takes one clumsy scandal to demonstrate the extent to which that has not happened.

<snip

Here's what we know, up until this point: The government used a shady tactic it swore it wouldn't use to pass a legislative change at the behest of an influential Quebec corporation - a corporation, it should be noted, that previously broke the law in order to funnel money disproportionately to the Liberal Party.

<snip>

In any case, Trudeau backed the Liberal machine over Wilson-Raybould himself on Tuesday, suggesting that if she felt pressure over conversations about SNC-Lavalin, she should have approached him herself. This is obviously another go at misdirection: The issue is not why she didn't report the pressure, but why she was subjected to it in the first place.

A solid effort, and one that fits well with a government that has proven itself to be just as cynical, partisan and calculating as its predecessors. One that works in the interests of a tainted global corporation, buries a legislative change in a once-maligned tool, locks down communication to control the message, and tolerates - even participates in - the railroading of a former cabinet member's reputation.

This is a scandal at its most comprehensive. The Liberals promised to be different; SNC-Lavalin is all the reasons they are not.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/committee-justice-snc-lavalin-wilson-raybould-1.5017184

Commons justice committee to probe SNC-Lavalin affair - but Liberals limit witness list

The Liberals, who hold the majority on the Commons committee, want to draft a witness list in private

John Paul Tasker CBC News Posted: Feb 13, 2019 7:57 AM ET

Liberal members of the Commons justice committee have agreed to study the SNC-Lavalin affair that has Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government under a cloud — clearing the way for a parliamentary probe into whether his office exerted influence over plans for a criminal prosecution of the Quebec-based engineering firm.

While Liberal MPs backed an investigation, they disagreed with opposition MPs on the committee over how wide-reaching such an inquiry should be, and who should be asked to appear.

Conservative and NDP members banded together to demand that Trudeau's most senior adviser, Gerald Butts, and Jody Wilson-Raybould - the former Justice minister at the heart of this affair - be added to the committee's proposed witness list. The Liberal members voted in a bloc against a motion from NDP MP Nathan Cullen to do just that.

That doesn't mean those two people will be spared parliamentary scrutiny - but it now falls to the Liberal majority on the committee to decide whether they will ever be called to give their side of the SNC-Lavalin story.

<snip>

The Liberal MPs on the justice committee insisted today they were acting independently of the Prime Minister's Office in agreeing to a study but limiting its scope. Opposition members weren't buying it.

"It's a cover-up and it's becoming clearer by the day," Conservative MP Michael Cooper said, calling his Liberal colleagues on the committee "nothing more than agents of the PMO."

Liberal members, meanwhile, said partisan grandstanding by the opposition MPs was a stunt designed to embarrass the prime minister.

Liberal MP Iqra Khalid went after a Conservative social media campaign aimed at getting members of the public to pressure Liberal MPs on the committee to study the matter, calling it "bullying." Khalid said the opposition was making "a lot of hay out of ... nothing substantiated."

Cullen and Conservative MP Lisa Raitt said the severity of the allegations detailed in the initial Globe and Mail report, and Wilson-Raybould's subsequent resignation from cabinet, demand a thorough view by Parliament.

"If you want to alleviate the suspicions of Canadians ... allow Ms. Wilson-Raybould to come forward, allow the principal secretary to come forward, allow Mathieu Bouchard, who met 50 times with SNC-Lavalin, to come forward," Cullen said. Bouchard is Trudeau's Quebec adviser.

"It baffles me that my Liberal colleagues have seen what has transpired over the last six days and they say, 'Nothing untoward here.' Clearly, Ms. Wilson-Raybould should be called to appear before this committee."


----------



## Cloud Cover (13 Feb 2019)

-"Conservative and NDP members banded together to demand that Trudeau's most senior adviser, Gerald Butts, and Jody Wilson-Raybould - the former Justice minister at the heart of this affair - be added to the committee's proposed witness list. The Liberal members voted in a bloc against a motion from NDP MP Nathan Cullen to do just that."

So he slithers out again.


----------



## Remius (13 Feb 2019)

I’ve mentioned before that most incidents involving Trudeau and the LPC have not really been earth shattering but this last one is a big one. One that might bring those other incidents into a larger context.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Feb 2019)

Thanks for that Loachman.

This caught my eye.



> John McCallum, a former Liberal cabinet minister whom Prime Minister Justin Trudeau fired as ambassador to China in January, sent along his own praise for both Wilson-Raybould and Philpott.



John McCallum - a well-seasoned old trooper that should know his way around.  I can't imagine him being anything other than loyal - unless he was seriously miffed.

Is it beyond the realm of possibility that he, too, is a victim of the PMO: ordered to float a lead balloon on China and then knifed when it didn't fly?  

John McCallum.  Add him to the list of Warren Kinsella, Stephen LeDrew, Jane Philpott and Wayne Long (MP for St John - Elsie Wayne's old constituency and home of the shuttered Irving shipyard that built the frigates Davie didn't build and home of the Irving Oil refinery due to receive Alberta oil from the Energy East pipeline cancelled by Quebec).

What happens when your man doesn't stay bought?


----------



## Loachman (13 Feb 2019)

From my earliest post on this thread:



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> What I’ve noticed is that when I have been bluntly critical of Trudeau’s PMO, no Liberal in Canada, outside the PMO, has reached out to criticize me, to gently try to correct perceptions, or otherwise to suggest I’m off-track. In fact, _*in a large number of cases, the response has been quite the opposite. I hear things like “Thank God” and “About time” and “I’ve been loving those columns.*_”
> 
> That’s all very anecdotal and personal and back-patting, so I’m sorry for all of it. But the conclusion I draw is: _*Justin Trudeau’s senior PMO staff doesn’t have a lot of fans, even among people who wish Trudeau well and whose personal futures are bound up with his. That may start to matter a lot now*_.



Somebody's fan club may be starting to crumble.

Knives may not be out yet, but some may have been loosened in their sheaths.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Feb 2019)

Importantly, the Liberals on the Committee voted, against a motion by the opposition, that all proceeding in this matter will be *in-camera.*




> In camera records
> In camera records include, for example, transcripts of in camera meetings, draft reports or documents prepared for or distributed at an in camera meeting, or any document referring to in camera parliamentary proceedings or documents from which the proceedings at an in camera meeting may be deduced. Consent to the disclosure of these records should never be given by House officials. Moreover, the disclosure of in camera materials constitutes a breach of the privilege of the House, and could lead to a finding of contempt of Parliament.  Accordingly, House officials should indicate, in such cases, that the House objects to the disclosure of such documents.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Feb 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> From my earliest post on this thread:
> 
> Somebody's fan club may be starting to crumble.
> 
> Knives may not be out yet, but some may have been loosened in their sheaths.



“Yond Cassius has a lean and hungry look; He [or she] thinks too much: such men [or women] are dangerous”  :nod:

―  William Shakespeare,  Julius Caesar


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Feb 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-justice-committee-becomes-a-farce-not-seen-since-liberal-sponsorship-scandal?video_autoplay=true

*John Ivison: Justice committee becomes a farce not seen since Liberal sponsorship scandal* - 13 Feb 19
    _One Liberal MP said that, since there is no hard evidence of wrongdoing, it would be a mistake to invite 'random people' — like 
       Wilson-Raybould — as witnesses_

Former prime minister Jean Chrétien is said to have told his cabinet the story of a farmer covered in cow dung. The farmer knew that if he tried to wipe the manure away when it was still fresh, he would spread it around and make it worse. Instead, he waited until it dried and then brushed it away. The anecdote came to mind watching the Liberal members of the justice committee buy the prime minister precious time to allow the hurricane of feculence soiling his reputation to pass before trying to clean it up.

Liberal committee members claimed they wanted nothing more than to reassure Canadians that their justice system is not only intact, but robust, in light of allegations that the Prime Minister’s Office intervened inappropriately with the office of the then attorney-general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, over the corruption prosecution of Quebec engineering giant, SNC-Lavalin.

Yet that enthusiasm did not prevent all five Liberals from voting against an amendment that called for the key players in the saga to appear before them as witnesses. It was a shameless display of sucking and blowing. The Liberals — Randy Boissonnault, Ali Ehsassi, Colin Fraser, Iqra Khalid and Ron McKinnon — backed their own motion that called on the committee to consider the arcane points of law involved in the case — the concept of remediation deals for errant corporations and the principles of the Shawcross doctrine that guides the relationship between the attorney general and his or her cabinet colleagues.

Pierre Poilievre, the Conservative provocateur-in-chief, said what the Liberals appeared to want was a “legal symposium.” The Liberal motion also called for the appearance of three witnesses — the current attorney general David Lametti; the clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick; and, the senior bureaucrat in the justice department, Nathalie Drouin.

NDP MP Nathan Cullen was first to point out that it was “more than interesting” that Wilson-Raybould was not among the witnesses the Liberals suggested calling. “We can’t reassure Canadians because we don’t know what happened yet,” he said. “I don’t want a seven-month expedition into the deepest bowels of Canadian law.” He proposed an amendment that added the names of Wilson-Raybould and two high-ranking advisers in the Prime Minister’s Office, Gerald Butts and Mathieu Bouchard, to the list of witnesses.

However, the Liberal members combined to defeat it, on the grounds that the justice committee has always discussed its witness list in camera. The committee is “not an investigative body,” said Boissonnault. “We don’t have the tools, the budget or the mechanisms to go on the type of fishing expedition or witch-hunt the Conservatives would like to see. It was as cynical a subversion of the public interest to narrow partisan concerns as Parliament Hill has seen since the public accounts committee descended into farce during the sponsorship scandal a decade and a half ago.As Cullen pointed out: “Of course committees have the power to investigate — we can subpoena witnesses. It’s just a question of whether we want to use it.”

Liberal MP Ehsassi was at least honest when he laid out his position — that in his personal opinion, “there is nothing to be concerned about.” He said the Liberal members had “checked our partisan hats at the door” and the real problem was the “political dynamic on the other side.” The committee allowed for a certain amount of grandstanding from the opposition members.
*
A government in total chaos
*
Poilievre called Justin Trudeau “despicable and cowardly” for attacking Wilson-Raybould, “who is legally incapable of defending herself.”
The opposition deputy leader, Lisa Raitt, said the Trudeau Liberals constitute “a government in total chaos.” But at least she got to the nub of the issue — that someone in the Prime Minister’s Office is alleged to have applied pressure on the attorney general to overrule the director of public prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, in the SNC-Lavalin case. Raitt said the committee’s job was to find out what form the pressure took and who applied it.

The Conservatives had put forward a motion that called on the committee to invite nine witnesses — Wilson-Raybould; Butts; Bouchard; Lametti; Roussel; Wernick; Wilson-Raybould’s former chief of staff, Jessica Prince; Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford; and his senior adviser, Elder Marques — and report back no later than Feb. 28.

Needless to say, that didn’t fly with Liberal committee members who were remarkably incurious about what these additional witnesses might contribute. Liberal MP McKinnon said that, since there is no hard evidence of any wrongdoing, it would be a mistake to invite “random people” as witnesses as part of a fishing expedition. It’s as well Leonardo di Vinci was not a Liberal committee member or the Renaissance might never have happened.

Conservative MP Michael Cooper said Canadians deserve to be reassured that the Prime Minister’s Office did not try to intervene in a criminal prosecution, but that the Liberal motion did little to offer that reassurance. “The only conclusion I can draw is that there is no interest in getting to the bottom of this matter,” he said. Khalid said that she and her colleagues were independent and had not been influenced in any way to back the motion. “I stand by the integrity of this committee,” she said.

There remained the prospect of additional witness — Lametti, Wernick and Drouin were named only because they had already agreed to appear, she said. That sparked the Conservatives to ask who had invited them, to which Boissonnault conceded: “My colleagues in government …” It emerged the government House leader’s office had co-ordinated the invitations. So much for independence; so much for integrity.

The Liberal attempt to drag out the proceedings was as blatant as it was unconvincing. There was a particular irony in their enthusiasm to study the workings of remediation deals now that the provision has already passed into law. It was noted that the justice committee did not have the chance to examine the legislation when it was snuck into the budget implementation bill last year and rammed through the finance committee.

I have argued in recent columns that the interactions between the Prime Minister’s Office and the attorney general, on the available evidence, likely fell short of interference. After the abject performance of the Liberals on the justice committee, I’m not so sure. Trudeau is sunk in the mire and it’s getting messy.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Feb 2019)

Question:  has the CEO of SNC Lavallin been arrested and tossed in jail?


----------



## Loachman (13 Feb 2019)

Another point of view on what initially triggered this whole mess:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/libya-snc-1.5014939

I bribed the Libyans. It's how things work in hopelessly corrupt countries: Neil Macdonald

'Baksheesh' is a lubricant. Either you pay it, or you don't get things done. Period.

Neil Macdonald CBC News Posted: Feb 12, 2019 4:00 AM ET

At the risk of drawing the pitiless attention of Canada's public prosecutor, I'm going to go ahead and admit that I have bribed foreign officials. Lots of foreign officials.

In fact, I should probably stand in the same courtroom dock as SNC-Lavalin. The Quebec engineering firm is accused of having bribed Libyan officials in order to do business in that hopelessly corrupt country. Well, so have I.

Back in 2011, after a long drive across Egypt, I and a CBC crew basically entered Libya illegally. A civil war had erupted, Moammar Gadhafi was sending his military against his own citizens, and in the country's rebellious eastern sector, the visa requirement had suddenly evaporated, as long as you were willing to slip some baksheesh into the clutching hands of Libyan officials staffing the clogged border crossing at El Salloum, near Tobruk.

I suppose I could have gotten up on my hind legs and proclaimed that I am a Canadian, and we Canadians are concerned about rule of law, and do not abet foreign corruption by paying bribes, but I didn't. I had to get to Benghazi, so I paid.

Having worked in the Middle East for several years, I regard baksheesh as the lubricant it is. Either you pay it, or you don't get anything done. It's about that simple.

More at link above


----------



## Petard (14 Feb 2019)

Neil Macdonald missed the mark entirely why SNC was not given "a deal", it's because they would not agree to making reparations that would meet the Criminal Code definition of them as part of a remediation agreement, had they it is very likely this would've gone away and no one the wiser.  

His contention that SNC was just doing what everyone does in Middle East, and not endemic of the company's ethics itself, doesn't hold up when you look at this story. They're claiming most of the old guard involved with those acts are gone, and they've cleaned house, yet remain unwilling to pay what was due as part of a DPA for the Libya bribery and fraud charges, so it seems  that some of that "old curved ethics thinking" remains.
https://business.financialpost.com/news/snc-lavalin-faces-criminal-probe-over-montreal-bridge-contract-documents-reveal#comments-area


----------



## Ostrozac (14 Feb 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Question:  has the CEO of SNC Lavallin been arrested and tossed in jail?



The former CEO pled guilty to a bribery charge just a couple of weeks ago, but according to the press coverage it looks like he's serving house arrest rather than prison time.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Feb 2019)

A summation of some views from Quebec. I guess they have forgotten what has happened in Alberta, the source of some of the funds for equalization transfers. 

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190214/textview
*
Quebec’s views on SNC-Lavalin starkly different* - 14 Feb 19
    _Francophone pundits rush to defend firm_

In the ongoing debate over the prosecution of SNCLavalin and what kind of “pressure” was put on exjustice minister Jody WilsonRaybould to prevent it, the pundit classes of Quebec and the rest of Canada are singing different songs. Since The Globe and Mail published a report last week alleging the Prime Minister’s Office pushed Wilson-Raybould to help the company avoid prosecution, a chorus of voices in Quebec has sought to defend the Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin, its importance to the provincial and national economy and the appropriateness of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s desire to save some 8,600 Canadian jobs.

The opinion pages and panels of talking heads in English-Canadian media have largely focused on the question of whether a refusal to bow to undue “pressure” from Trudeau’s office led to Wilson-Raybould’s demotion to the veterans affairs file last month and ultimately her resignation on Tuesday. In Quebec, par contre, the commentariat is more critical of Wilson-Raybould. They are more concerned about why the then-justice minister wouldn’t push the Director of Public Prosecutions to allow SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement — a way for the firm to make amends for corruption charges incurred doing business in Libya without risking a long-term freeze on its ability to take public contracts. Liberals had inserted provisions for that kind of arrangement in the 2018 federal budget. Why then wouldn’t the provision be used, Quebec columnists wonder?

Here’s some of what they’ve been telling their readers and listeners.

The PMO may have done the right thing, Yves Boisvert argued in La Presse in the wake of the Globe’s report last week, saying a deferred prosecution agreement makes sense in this case. The same day came a take from L’actualité’s Alec Castonguay that it’s possible WilsonRaybould wasn’t a “heroine standing up to power,” and that Trudeau seemed to be advocating for something sensible.

Gérald Fillion argued in a Monday analysis for RadioCanada (CBC’s Frenchlanguage counterpart) that SNC-Lavalin is under siege, and in danger. The real question, he wrote, is why the government, why WilsonRaybould, wouldn’t use the tools Liberals had just put into place. Likewise Le Devoir’s Denis Saint-Martin said the absence of “pressure” by the PMO would’ve been more surprising than this so-called scandal, given SNC-Lavalin’s economic heft.

The next day, on RadioCanada’s news program Le télé journal, an expert on public and private governance, Michel Nadeau, defended the prime minister. “He told Quebecers, ‘Look, with SNC-Lavalin, I did what I had to do,’” Nadeau said in French, paraphrasing Trudeau. “’And those who had something to say about it could have raised their hands, or come to me. But Wilson-Raybould didn’t present herself.’” The real mystery, he said, was why bureaucrats would obstruct an agreement for SNC-Lavalin when the same is done for multinational companies across the world, and in light of the company’s role in “building modern Quebec.”

On Tuesday Michel Girard, for the Journal de Montréal, added his voice to the mix to declare “mortal consequences” if SNC-Lavalin is prosecuted and convicted. Opposition leaders, he wrote, should be asked why they won’t support SNCLavalin like Quebec Premier François Legault does — a pertinent question for Quebecers in a federal election year.

On his TVA Nouvelles program Monday, television personality and former provincial party leader Mario Dumont said no one is denying the company engaged in corruption. But he offered an explanation of the issue that outlined how SNC-Lavalin, under a deferred prosecution agreement, would still have to pay significant fines, and how similar agreements have been used in other countries including the United Kingdom and United States. In a column for the Journal Wednesday, he further argued that Trudeau’s actions to help secure such a thing were “serious and responsible,” what one would expect of a head of government. The only error, he said, was that Trudeau had done all this in secret.

Franco-Quebec coverage of the situation hasn’t been without its skeptics. For La Presse, François Cardinal wondered Wednesday why so many commentators had made their beds on the issue before having all the facts, and urged that Wilson-Raybould should be allowed to say her piece.

Another La Presse columnist, Patrick Lagacé, noted that SNC-Lavalin created this mess in the first place by engaging in corrupt activities. “I must have slumbered in a deep hibernation to have missed the moment when we collectively decided that corruption and collusion on a grand scale isn’t so bad,” Jonathan Trudeau wrote for the Journal Wednesday.

But underlying many of the arguments is a fundamental sense that English Canada is biased against Quebec and its companies. Why punish thousands of workers when those who engaged in corruption are now outside of the company, Jean-Robert Sansfaçon asked in Le Devoir Tuesday? Why not allow for a solution that will prevent the dismantlement of such an important Quebec entity?

“I can’t help but wonder whether English Canada’s punditocracy would be as indignant if the prime minister’s office had seemingly been trying to save a Toronto or Calgary-based multinational corporation instead of a Quebec one,” wrote Lise Ravary, in English, for the Montreal Gazette on Tuesday. “SNC-Lavalin is Canada’s largest engineering firm. Not just Quebec’s.”


----------



## YZT580 (14 Feb 2019)

So, let me get this straight: the Quebec consensus is that it is OK to circumvent the law provided that jobs are protected.  It is Ok for the PM and his office to pressure justice but only if it protects jobs.  Oh, and those jobs have to be in Quebec.  I didn't read anything by those same pundits encouraging the government to go the extra mile to ensure that the pipelines were built.  It would seem that in their view, pragmatism trumps law.  It sort of puts a lie to the storyline that they have followed vis-a-vis China doesn't it?


----------



## Remius (14 Feb 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> So, let me get this straight: the Quebec consensus is that it is OK to circumvent the law provided that jobs are protected.  It is Ok for the PM and his office to pressure justice but only if it protects jobs.  Oh, and those jobs have to be in Quebec.  I didn't read anything by those same pundits encouraging the government to go the extra mile to ensure that the pipelines were built.  It would seem that in their view, pragmatism trumps law.  It sort of puts a lie to the storyline that they have followed vis-a-vis China doesn't it?



And maybe that is the point.  The LPC want QC votes next election.  The LPC is seen protecting SNC at all costs including ethics breaches and possible obstruction of justice so as to garner that province's votes.


----------



## Jarnhamar (14 Feb 2019)

Why would Quebec want to risk their golden cow?

This won't sink the Liberals. In a week or two there will be some other story popping up that the media (same ones that just got a whole bunch of money from the Liberals) will go into a frenzy about doing their best to change the topic away from snc.

Trudeau might get found guilty of another ethics violation, he'll maybe pay a small fine?  Throw some tax money around, ban handguns and call it a day.


----------



## Remius (14 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why would Quebec want to risk their golden cow?
> 
> This won't sink the Liberals. In a week or two there will be some other story popping up that the media (same ones that just got a whole bunch of money from the Liberals) will go into a frenzy about doing their best to change the topic away from snc.
> 
> Trudeau might get found guilty of another ethics violation, he'll maybe pay a small fine?  Throw some tax money around, ban handguns and call it a day.



Maybe, maybe not.  Time will tell if it does damage them.  It will depend on when and if Wilson Raybouod says anything.  One thing is that they will not be able to say they do things different, are the feminist option or true friends of the native community.  They gave up those mantles with what looks like a cover up and punishing her for refusing to go along.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Feb 2019)

Unlikely to compensate those losses with pickups among Quebecers and Newfies that were working the camps in Alberta or anybody else in Alberta, Saskatchewan or BC.

I reckon BC will go tribal again and revert to the NDP where it doesn't go Tory.


----------



## Rifleman62 (14 Feb 2019)

From the Globe & Mail evening update. The Liberals grasping at straws IMO.



> *Liberal MP says Wilson-Raybould might have lost justice post because she doesn’t speak French*
> 
> Anthony Housefather, the Liberal MP who will chair hearings into the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair, told a Montreal radio station today that Ms. Wilson-Raybould might have been moved out of the roles of attorney general and justice minister because she does not speak French. As Steven Chase reports this afternoon, Mr. Housefather was addressing allegations that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was moved out of the justice portfolio over her refusal to shelve a prosecution against Montreal construction giant SNC-Lavalin. He said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has the right to choose who is in what cabinet post and there could be several reasons why people are shuffled. “For example ... there’s a lot of legal issues coming up in Quebec and the Prime Minister may well have decided he needed a justice minister that could speak French,” Mr. Housefather said.


----------



## Remius (14 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> From the Globe & Mail evening update. The Liberals grasping at straws IMO.



More like finding sad excuses. This is getting sad.

The PMO is really bad at damage control.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Feb 2019)

Telford and Butts need to go.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Feb 2019)

But if Butts and Telford go, what then of the hollow man?


----------



## YZT580 (15 Feb 2019)

The 3 bi-elections coming up will tell the tale.  Not so much who wins the seat but the gain or loss of votes to the liberal party.  I think though that this just gave Singh a by into a seat in the commons.


----------



## Halifax Tar (15 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> But if Butts and Telford go, what then of the hollow man?



I guess we would see.


----------



## Furniture (15 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Unlikely to compensate those losses with pickups among Quebecers and Newfies that were working the camps in Alberta or anybody else in Alberta, Saskatchewan or BC.
> 
> I reckon BC will go tribal again and revert to the NDP where it doesn't go Tory.



It may cost them seats in Ontario as well, where they just tossed a provincial government that was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The CPC have already showed us that it's possible to get a majority without strong support in Quebec so long as you hold the West and Ontario.


----------



## Remius (15 Feb 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> It may cost them seats in Ontario as well, where they just tossed a provincial government that was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The CPC have already showed us that it's possible to get a majority without strong support in Quebec so long as you hold the West and Ontario.



Maybe a few yes. 

But:  Doug Ford's move to eliminate the French language commissioner and not fund a francophone university did some damage to the conservative brand.  Franco Ontarians and Quebecers will associate that with the federal CPC despite Scheer's protests and attempts to distance themselves.  Only a few concentrated seats in Ontario but still. 

Also Doug Ford has pissed off a few other groups, teachers, autism advocates etc that might be vocal enough to demonstrate buyer's remorse.  It also depends on what else he might do.  Vote rich Toronto is likely not going to go CPC this time around given the spat with Ford. Plus Ford has his own problems with ethics with the whole OPP commissioner thing and the latest with Lisa Macleod

I realise that it is provincial vs federal but many voters won't see it that way.


----------



## brihard (15 Feb 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> The 3 bi-elections coming up will tell the tale.  Not so much who wins the seat but the gain or loss of votes to the liberal party.  I think though that this just gave Singh a by into a seat in the commons.



I didn't think of that... But yeah, they just gave a big 'frig you' to potential constituents in B.C. Wilson-Raybould is well respected there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Feb 2019)

They are burying themselves deeper daily. They'll be looking for something big and controversial, that doesn't do a lot of damage to their base, to knock this off the table.

Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.


----------



## brihard (15 Feb 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> They are burying themselves deeper daily. They'll be looking for something big and controversial, that doesn't do a lot of damage to their base, to knock this off the table.
> 
> Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.



Not a bad guess. They'll probably keep that up their sleeve until JW-R's 'last move' is made, e.g. if she crosses or does something else significant.

She hasn't spoken yet, clearly her lawyer is taking her time. Clearly they've gotta be bracing for that and preparing a countermove- probably not directly against her, but rather something to divert attention after a couple days.


----------



## Haggis (16 Feb 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.



That would be the lowest hanging fruit.  However, faster and more politically visible than C-71, a ban would be the quickest to implement and would give hem the boost they need to regain their majority poll numbers.


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2019)

I don't think that stupid new anti-gun laws gain them any significant numbers of votes. It's not a deciding factor for most people outside of firearms owners and gun grabbers, and those people don't generally seem to switch sides.


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2019)

https://theprovince.com/opinion/john-ivison-for-mishandling-wilson-raybould-and-snc-lavalin-trudeau-has-nobody-to-blame-but-himself/wcm/9bb90740-098b-452d-82d0-443dd72a9fb6

John Ivison: Trudeau has nobody to blame but himself for mishandling Wilson-Raybould and SNC Lavalin

Published: February 15, 2019

The buck stops with any prime minister. He is the public face of those decisions - and in the SNC affair, _*he has become a figure of public derision*_

It’s never good for a politician when they’re being laughed at. Justin Trudeau’s claim that Jody Wilson-Raybould would still be justice minister if Scott Brison hadn’t resigned from politics quickly became a social media meme.

“If Scott Brison had not stepped down, Erik Karlsson would still be an Ottawa Senator,” wrote one hockey fan.

Brison’s spouse, Max St. Pierre, joined in the fun. “It’s ok, I usually blame my husband for everything too,” he tweeted.

The internet nearly blew up under the pressure of political nerds pointing out that Brison leaving his job as Treasury Board president did not necessarily mean Trudeau had to shuffle Wilson-Raybould. Rather, it offered him an opportunity to move a minister who was proving too independent for the prime minister’s liking.

"For those of you doubting the PM's excuse this morning that he had to shuffle Wilson-Raybould because Brison resigned, I can only assume you have not read the British North America Act as closely as some of us. This is a well known quirk of our constitution. #cdnpoli"
pic.twitter.com/RjU16RfFDq - ted laking (@tedlaking) February 15, 2019

<snip>

When Wilson-Raybould had asked if he was going to direct her to take a particular decision, he said he told her it was her decision. “I had full confidence in her role as attorney general to make the decision,” he said.

_*But then he stepped all over his message by declining to say whether he had expressed a preference - which strongly suggests he had indeed offered an opinion in SNC’s favour.*_

Keith Beardsley, who was deputy chief of staff for issues management in Stephen Harper’s government, said Trudeau and his advisers don’t seem to have a firm grasp of what their message is, “as if they expect Trudeau’s charisma to see them through.”

But a prime minister who was unflappable for much of his first three years in office now looks nervous, as if he’s not confident his mouth won’t spit out bloopers, like a broken slot machine. The Liberals’ prime asset has become their biggest liability.

Beardsley said he doesn’t see anyone playing the “What if…?” game - simulating how various talking points might play out in the media and beyond.

He pointed out the Trudeau Liberals were clearly not prepared for the public scrutiny around the SNC affair, or for the prospect Wilson-Raybould might quit.

The assumption seems to have been that she would do what she was told and accept the demotion to become veterans’ affairs minister, and that they would be able to replace her with a minister who would do the prime minister’s bidding on the SNC file.

Wilson-Raybould was offered the department of Indigenous services and turned it down, sources said. But she could have been moved sideways into a more high-profile position. Even as she was shuffled to veterans’ affairs, Trudeau failed to frame it as a necessary move to give direction to a department that needed a strong minister. In his press conference last month, Trudeau was sparing in his praise for a minister he needed to keep onside, merely saying she had “demonstrated tremendous skill” on her files.

Even prior to her demotion, Wilson-Raybould had made it clear she did not feel she received the respect she deserved. In a speech at a conference on Indigenous women and the law in Ottawa in October, she said “no matter what table one sits around, or what position, or with what title and appearance of power and influence, the experience of marginalization can still carry with you.” She went on to say that justice for Indigenous people could not be achieved by “half measures, good intentions or lofty rhetoric.”

Since those are Trudeau’s Three Graces, he could hardly be unaware that he had on his hands a minister who was less than enamoured about the state of the nation, or her place in it.

It is hard to escape the conclusion that what happened next was petty and vindictive. She was demoted, maligned by anonymous Liberals after she quit cabinet and blamed by the prime minister for not raising with him any concerns she had on the SNC file.

“They tried to strip her of her dignity but this is a proud, accomplished woman. You can’t do that and not expect blow back,” said Beardsley.

One Liberal suggested the prime minister has pulled the pin on a grenade that has exploded in the government’s face. He suggested a stronger prime minister would have publicly made the case for intervening in the SNC case, rather than operating in the shadows.

Just as it seemed things could not get worse for the Liberals, an emergency meeting of the justice committee made it appear there was a concerted cover-up.

The five rookie Liberal MPs on the committee offered a bunch of ham-fisted excuses for not calling key witnesses like Wilson-Raybould and Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts.

Calling “random people” would be a “fishing expedition,” said MP Ron McKinnon, as if the opposition were instructing the committee clerk to wander onto Sparks Street and corral the first people he met.

A more professional operation would have put all the Liberal MPs in a room to discuss in detail how they planned to proceed and develop talking points that made sense, said Beardsley. The comments made subsequently by committee chair Anthony Housefather - that Wilson-
Raybould may have been shuffled because she didn’t speak French - should have been shot down straight away by the PMO.

It amounts to a catalogue of self-inflicted wounds that have made the worst of a bad situation. There has been a failure to act nimbly and snuff out emerging bad news - it took the PMO nearly a week to come out and call anonymous comments criticizing Wilson-Raybould “unacceptable.”

Some of this may be attributed to a high degree of turnover in staff in the issues management function in PMO. But the missteps can also be attributed to too little preparation and direction from the centre - a counterintuitive assertion, given the the prevailing wisdom of an omnipotent Prime Minister’s Office.

Conservative MP Erin O’Toole called for Butts to be the next person shuffled because he creates a “divisive environment.”

“Time for Trudeau to show his Svengali the door,” he tweeted.

It’s a sentiment with which a large number of Liberals sympathize. Butts controls access to the prime minister and has such a close relationship with Trudeau that they have been likened to Siamese twins. Inevitably, such an affinity creates resentment among people outside the relationship.

But as Harper’s former chief of staff Ian Brodie pointed out, accountable government means the boss is responsible for the staff.

Trudeau is no political neophyte. He has been an MP for more than a decade.

Nobody made him wear a Sherwani when he was in India, or dance the bhangra.

Nobody forced him to manhandle the Conservative whip and elbow an NDP MP on the floor of the House of Commons because he was frustrated at the slow passage of government legislation.

No one compelled him to describe Fidel Castro as a “larger than life leader, a legendary revolutionary and orator.”

Neither was the prime minister coerced into the helicopter that whisked him off to a vacation on the Aga Khan’s Caribbean island, in contravention of the Conflict of Interest Act.

He was not bound to pay Omar Khadr $10 million in compensation or to defend the government’s court case against veterans “because they’re asking for more than we’re able to give right now.”

The principles of open and accountable government mean the prime minister is responsible for organizing cabinet and providing the direction necessary to maintain unity. He sets the general direction of government policy and establishes standards of conduct. He is not a cog in something turning - he operates the machine.

The buck stops with any prime minister, but this one in particular has been more forceful than most in inserting himself into every crisis. He is the public face of those decisions - and in the SNC affair, he has become a figure of public derision.


----------



## Loachman (16 Feb 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-trudeau-and-wilson-raybould-shouldnt-even-have-been-talking-about-snc-lavalin?video_autoplay=true

Andrew Coyne: What could Trudeau properly have discussed with Wilson-Raybould about SNC-Lavalin?

Whether the PM or his officials crossed the line, or just tiptoed up to it, isn’t really the issue: they shouldn’t have come anywhere near it

February 15, 2019 9:32 PM EST

Consider solicitor-client privilege officially waived.

The prime minister has spent the last several days disclosing, line by tendentious line, the contents of his discussions with the former attorney general in September of last year. First we were informed that he “never directed” Jody Wilson-Raybould to put a stop to the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Next, that he told her “the decision” was “hers alone” to make. Only latterly did we learn that this was in response to a question from her: are you directing me?

If he is permitted to discuss what was said between them, plainly so is she. Perhaps, indeed, that is what the prime minister anticipates. The strategy would appear to be to reduce the whole business to the murky ambiguities of private conversations. (_*Maybe she thought she was being pressured, but I didn’t think I was pressuring her!*_) (Loachman: Where have we heard something like that before)

And yet this is something of a red herring. It doesn’t much matter whether she was directed or pressured or badgered or cajoled, if the action being discussed was out of bounds to begin with.

Suppose, that is, the prime minister did no more than politely ask whether she might consider - though of course it’s entirely up to you - prevailing upon the director of public prosecutions to set aside fraud and corruption charges against the Quebec construction giant in favour of the newly minted alternative of a remediation agreement. That would still be highly improper. Because she would have been asked to do something she could not legally do. And if she could, the DPP could not legally act as ordered.

Let’s take the last point first. The director of public prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, it has been widely reported, decided not to offer SNC-Lavalin the remediation agreement it had so feverishly, and successfully, lobbied for. _*But in fact she may have had no choice.*_ The relevant provision (sect. 715.3) of the Criminal Code sets out a long list of “conditions” that must be present and “factors” prosecutors must consider before they can even enter negotiations on such an agreement; another list sets out the “mandatory contents” of the agreement itself.

First, prosecutors “must” consider “the circumstances in which the act or omission that forms the basis of the offence was brought to the attention of investigative authorities,” in the service of one of the legislation’s key objectives, “to encourage voluntary disclosure of the wrongdoing.”

But SNC-Lavalin didn’t voluntarily disclose that it allegedly paid bribes of $48 million to Libyan government officials and defrauded various organizations in the country of $130 million. The matter only came to light after a lengthy police investigation.

Second, the agreement must include “the organization’s admission of responsibility” for the alleged offence. Has SNC-Lavalin explicitly admitted corporate responsibility in the Libyan affair? A lawyer friend who has closely followed the case can find no example of it, in any public statement. It has dismissed the charges against it as “without merit,” insisting any alleged crimes were the work of a few rogue executives “who left the company long ago.” Perhaps that weighed heavily in the director’s deliberations.

Finally, there is sect. 715.32 (3) of the Code, under the heading “Factors not to consider.” For offences under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, it reads - SNC-Lavalin was charged with one count of corruption under sect. 3(1)(b) of the act, along with one count of fraud - “the prosecutor must not consider,” inter alia, “the national economic interest.” (This is not only a matter of domestic law. It is a virtual word-for-word transposition of our obligations under the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.)

So its defenders’ stated rationale for sparing SNC-Lavalin from prosecution - the dire consequences for jobs and the economy should the company be convicted, and presumably collapse - is not only economically suspect (SNC-Lavalin is not the only employer in the construction industry, nor would the work for which it has contracted disappear just because the company did) and morally dubious. It’s expressly precluded in law.

The DPP was not only within her rights, then, to refuse to negotiate a remediation agreement.. She would arguably be breaking the law if she did.

Suppose that were not true. Could the attorney general order her to? That, too, is far from clear. Under the law the attorney general is required to sign off on a prosecutor’s decision to negotiate a remediation agreement. But the prosecutor needs no such consent to decline to negotiate; neither is there anything in the law that says the attorney general can order her to.

<snip>

If the attorney general _*can’t*_ instruct the DPP to go easy on SNC-Lavalin, and if the DPP declines to do so on her own, _*what on earth was there for the prime minister and the attorney general to discuss?*_ This is especially pertinent in light of the general obligation on all public office-holders, as described in the federal Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code: that _*they should not merely obey the law, but “perform their official duties … in a manner that will bear the closest scrutiny.”*_


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2019)

Snap Loachman!

You just beat me to it.

I was going to highlight this bit. 



> Finally, there is sect. 715.32 (3) of the Code, under the heading “Factors not to consider.” For offences under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, it reads - SNC-Lavalin was charged with one count of corruption under sect. 3(1)(b) of the act, along with one count of fraud - “the prosecutor must not consider,” inter alia, “the national economic interest.” (This is not only a matter of domestic law. It is a virtual word-for-word transposition of our obligations under the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials.)
> 
> *So its defenders’ stated rationale for sparing SNC-Lavalin from prosecution - the dire consequences for jobs and the economy* should the company be convicted, and presumably collapse - is not only economically suspect (SNC-Lavalin is not the only employer in the construction industry, nor would the work for which it has contracted disappear just because the company did) and morally dubious. It’s *expressly precluded in law*.


----------



## Haggis (16 Feb 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't think that stupid new anti-gun laws gain them any significant numbers of votes. It's not a deciding factor for most people outside of firearms owners and gun grabbers, and those people don't generally seem to switch sides.



I'll fire off one comment then abandon this tangent in this thread.

Two analysts from Hill-Knowlton Strategies, quoted in March 2018, stated "Gun control presents an untapped opportunity for Justin Trudeau and his team to grow and solidify the voting base that gave them a majority in 2015".  The significant emotionally driven and generally uninformed support for a ban in most major urban centers (above and beyond Bill C-71's provisions) is not lost on Trudeau.

Even if C-71 is stalled in committee, i'd watch for a series of prohibition orders and/or OICs converting all restricted firearms to prohibited status to come in the next few months. Bill C-71 may die on the order table when the writ is dropped, but Trudeau will have his "safer Canadian communities" in time for October.


----------



## Good2Golf (16 Feb 2019)

Honest question...if the Liberals try that, couldn’t the CPC just go along with it, de-power the Grit distraction effort to neglible influence, return the focus to where it rightly belong — on the 2-headed (so far) Hydra of (alleged) inappropriate PMO influence on the workings of Government, then revert when they came  back into power with a majority?


----------



## Haggis (17 Feb 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Honest question...if the Liberals try that, couldn’t the CPC just go along with it, de-power the Grit distraction effort to neglible influence, return the focus to where it rightly belong — on the 2-headed (so far) Hydra of (alleged) inappropriate PMO influence on the workings of Government, then revert when they came  back into power with a majority?



Okay... last comment on this tangent.. I promise.  *IF* Bill C-71 passes and become law, the power to reclassify firearms will be taken away from the government and rest in the hands of the RCMP.

And I don't believe for a minute that the Conservatives will form a majority government.  The Liberal campaign machine is very, very good at what it does and their "leader" is far more charismatic than either Scheer or Bernier.  The NDP will falter under Singh and be forced to more closely align themselves with the Liberals to survive.  These "scandals" will soon be buried and forgotten when the money taps open and the social engineering policy changes begins to shape the election battlespace in Trudeau's favour as long as his urban millennial support base doesn't look up from their phones long enough to see what he's really up to.


----------



## Lumber (17 Feb 2019)

Ok I'm a little confused by a lot of what I'm reading online.

For example: 



> New Democrat MP Niki Ashton said on Twitter she was "disgusted" by Mr Trudeau's "condescension".[of Wilson-Raybould]





> Conservative party deputy leader Lisa Raitt told journalists in Ottawa on Wednesday that Ms Wilson-Raybould's "reputation has been dragged through the mud, the Liberal mud."



and the biggest one is:



> The Union of BC Indian Chiefs called on the prime minister to "immediately and categorically publicly condemn the racist and sexist innuendo" about Ms Wilson-Raybould.





> This comes two days after UBCIC released an open letter decrying the "discriminatory, sexist comments about minister Jody Wilson-Raybould," which they claimed were being spread by government officials and staff. The letter specifically highlighted anonymous government sources who told media that Wilson-Raybould was "a thorn in the side of cabinet," "difficult to get along with," and "known to berate fellow cabinet members at the table."



Maybe I'm just not reading into the whole affair deeply enough, but I haven't seen any comments at all, especially not from the Prime Minister, that are in any way condescending, racist, sexist, or otherwise damaging to her character and reputation.

Furthermore, even if the liberal insiders were decrying her as "difficult to get along with" and "a thorn in the side of cabinet", how can those specific comments be construe as racist, sexist, or anything like that?

So far all I've seen is a load of nothing. The PM has decried the negative comments made, but otherwise hasn't actually made any formal statements regarding the affair, and neither as Wilson-Raybould. Everyone is just keeping quiet, so what is everyone freaking out about?


----------



## ballz (17 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm just not reading into the whole affair deeply enough, but I haven't seen any comments at all, especially not from the Prime Minister, that are in any way condescending, racist, sexist, or otherwise damaging to her character and reputation.
> 
> Furthermore, even if the liberal insiders were decrying her as "difficult to get along with" and "a thorn in the side of cabinet", how can those specific comments be construe as racist, sexist, or anything like that?



I haven't seen anything racist. The stuff about how she was difficult to get along with and the like are what's being construed as sexist. Disagreeableness is actually a predictor of success in the workplace, but often when women are disagreeable they are marked as contrary, bitchy, etc... so it's a bit of a double-standard that's been identified by third-wave feminism, one of the few things third-wave feminism has identified that I actually agree with.


----------



## Rifleman62 (17 Feb 2019)

Summary:
*
NP View: Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin coverups are more disturbing than the alleged crimes* - 15 Feb 19
    _It's a truism that it's not the crime but the coverup that typically does a government in. Maybe. But if this is a coverup, it is almost criminally incompetent_

More than a full week after the SNC-Lavalin scandal erupted all over the Trudeau government, what’s most astonishing is how the federal Liberals haven’t even been able to yet settle on a coherent cover story —  a “narrative,” as the political jargon would call it. The alleged acts are bad enough: pressuring former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to quietly nudge prosecutors toward giving Quebec-based, Liberal-friendly SNC-Lavalin a break in an ongoing criminal prosecution for corruption charges, and then demoting her into a lesser portfolio when she refused. The manifest incompetence of the government’s response to the growing controversy is somehow more disturbing.

Let’s start with the whisper campaign that immediately began against Wilson-Raybould. A bevy of anonymous Liberal insiders have been spreading the word to any journalist who’ll listen that she was just a pain to work with. It was all about “Jody,” not about the government. She was difficult. Not a team player. The whispers, no doubt co-ordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office in a hamfisted attempt to control a disastrous story, resulted in a remarkable statement of support for Wilson-Raybould from another member of Trudeau’s cabinet this week: Jane Philpott, former minister of health and Indigenous services and now head of the Treasury Board. Her comments weren’t about the substance of the scandal per se; she tweeted a photo of her and Wilson-Raybould smiling, thanked her for having “taught me so much” and said she was “proud of the laws we worked on together” and that she knows “you will continue to serve Canadians.” But they were clearly an expression of support for Wilson-Raybould and, by clearly praising her work and public service, a vigorous rebuke to the stories being planted about Wilson-Raybould’s supposed selfishness.


Once the slagging of Wilson-Raybould had brought enough widespread criticism over their clearly sexist and probably racist tone (attacking a strong, highly accomplished female Aboriginal for being too full of herself — how classy), the prime minister finally condemned them. “There have been many comments published in the media in various reports, about the former attorney general, about Jody Wilson-Raybould, that are absolutely unacceptable,” he said on Friday. “The sexist comments, the racist comments that have been made by anonymous sources are unacceptable and I condemn them in the strongest possible terms. That is not what we need to be engaged in, in public discourse in Canada.”

It was an appropriate response. But how odd that it took a full six days after Liberal insiders had planted the slanderous stories for our supposedly feminist and progressive prime minister to finally say that.

This was far from the only misstep the prime minister had this week. On Monday, under questioning from reporters, Trudeau assured Canadians that the matter was overblown. The fact that Wilson-Raybould continued to serve in cabinet during the controversy, he said, showed that the public was overreacting, and that Wilson-Raybould was comfortable continuing to serve in his government.

Whoops.

She quit hours later, leaving Trudeau to gamely suggest the next day that he was disappointed she hadn’t spoken up if she’d felt uncomfortable. Ah, at least he made sure to keep blaming her and her alone.

Things did not improve for the Liberals as the week went on. The opposition tried to force a meaningful investigation through the Commons justice committee, but were effectively stonewalled by the Liberal majority, who declined to invite the key players to testify — most notably Wilson-Raybould herself and the prime minister’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts, who had privately discussed the SNC-Lavalin case with Wilson-Raybould. The committee may later elect to call either or both of those individuals, but only after closed-door meetings and only if at least one Liberal breaks with the majority to vote with the opposition. Canadians will learn as much about this federal Liberal scandal, in other words, as the federal Liberals choose. Chalk up another win for Canada’s Most Transparent Government Ever.

The disgraces didn’t stop there. Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, chair of the justice committee, gave a series of interviews where he suggested, apparently without having given the notion the slightest thought, that Wilson-Raybould was bounced from justice because she doesn’t speak French. That was a curious message to send the thousands of francophone Canadians who have honourably served in our country’s armed forces — including in our traditionally French-speaking units — by suggesting that Veterans Affairs is a portfolio suitable for dumping ministers whose French doesn’t quite pass muster. Housefather quickly retreated, saying his comments were speculation and he apologized for them. But then the prime minister later suggested that Wilson-Raybould wouldn’t have been moved if Scott Brison hadn’t recently resigned from politics, requiring a cabinet shuffle. While it’s true that Brison’s departure made a shuffle necessary, it was not necessary to specifically shuffle Wilson-Raybould; Finance Minister Bill Morneau and Environment Minister Catherine McKenna somehow managed to hang on to their jobs. (Amusingly, shortly after the prime minister’s comment, Brison’s husband tweeted, “It’s ok, I usually blame my husband for everything too.”)

It’s become a truism in politics that it’s not the crime but the coverup that typically does a government in. Maybe so. But if this is a coverup, it is almost criminally incompetent. The alleged offence is bad enough. The aftermath is embarrassing.

_- mod edit to add link -_


----------



## Lumber (17 Feb 2019)

Ok... I don't often believe things are ever as nefarious as people claim them to be, but at least I can see how people can make the claim; that is, I can see the path they are following to connect all the dots, I just disagree with their ultimate conclusion.

In this case, I just can't see the dots.

First off, what was actually said, and by who, about the PM "pressuring former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to quietly nudge prosecutors toward giving Quebec-based......[sniped]". 

How verifiable are these claims? Who actually said it? What are the sources? I've seen jack shit besides this one line over and over again.

Second, 



> The whispers, no doubt co-ordinated by the Prime Minister’s Office



And just what the bloody hell are people basing that bone headed assumption on? Many of you might consider our PM to be a young, naive and under qualified, but do you actually believe that sunny-ways drama teacher Justin Trudeau would actually allow his office to enact a campaign of _slander_?

So what the actual f*** is going on. I haven't read one bit of any journalism that actually shows something happened that was actually meaningful.

For all I know, this is how it went down:



> PM sees this whole SNC-Lavalin affair being bad for Canada's economy in general, bad for Quebec's economy in particular, and bad for the Liberal party in Quebec from a political perspective.
> 
> PM calls in the Attorney General, asks her something along the lines of "hey is there any way we could make this hurt less? any legal way to avoid as much damage as possible"?
> 
> ...



Fast forward a few weeks/months, and someone who happened to be standing nearby breaks the law by leaking info about a conversation between the PM and the Attorney General, basically claiming that what was no more than a spit-balling session was an actual attempt by the PM to subvert the rule of law.

Now, can the news outlets stop talking about this all freaking day, at least until they can provide some actual and verifiable claims?


----------



## PuckChaser (17 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> First off, what was actually said, and by who, about the PM "pressuring former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to quietly nudge prosecutors toward giving Quebec-based......[sniped]".
> 
> How verifiable are these claims? Who actually said it? What are the sources? I've seen jack crap besides this one line over and over again.



The Prime Minister himself, after days of denials, has literally just said JWR asked him if he was directing her to take certain action in the SNC-Lavalin case. This is after he snuck a major Criminal Code change into Budget 2018 that very much appears to directly benefit SNC-Lavalin after years of direct lobbying by that company to Liberal MPs and Cabinet members. The fact that the Prime Minister will not waive Solicitor-Client privilege to let JWR clear the air, while he continues to change his story on an almost hourly basis, smacks of a complete cover-up from the PMO.

If there was nothing to the allegations, JWR wouldn't need to resign, would be able to speak freely, and wouldn't needed to have hired a former Supreme Court Justice to advise her on what she legally can say to defend herself.


----------



## Remius (17 Feb 2019)

Your scenario lumber does not fit why she was demoted, hasn’t said a word yet about it, why JT hasn’t waived privilege if it was that simple nor why she suddenly resigned as VAC minister.

Also,the various scenarios and changing stories don’t help perception.


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Feb 2019)

Add Penny Colennette (writing in the Star) to the list of the Old Guard that is less than impressed with the situation in which Trudeau finds himself.

I don't see much sign of anybody riding to the rescue.


----------



## Lumber (18 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Your scenario lumber does not fit why she was demoted, hasn’t said a word yet about it, why JT hasn’t waived privilege if it was that simple nor why she suddenly resigned as VAC minister.
> 
> Also,the various scenarios and changing stories don’t help perception.



She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons. It's all conjecture that it was because she wouldn't play Liberal hard ball.

He hasn't said anything about it, because in my scenario, what he "asked" the AG was incriminating. If he admits to any type of conversation, even one he had in naive ignorance, theyd be all over him. Better just to be quiet. 

For the refusal to waive privilege, same as above.

Finally, for her resignation? Well it could very well have been just a giant FU to the prime minister. She's upset that she got moved out of the AG position (regardless of the reason why), and when all of this came to light she said "hey, I bet if I resigned now it would REALLY make him look bad."

Of course, this is all just conjecture. More then likely there is something untoward going on. Im just not convinced that's is nefarious cronnism or corruption, and I certainly still can't see how people are so confidently connecting the dots, when there are very very few dots.


----------



## ballz (18 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> How verifiable are these claims? Who actually said it? What are the sources? I've seen jack crap besides this one line over and over again.



The Globe & Mail reported it, based on unnamed sources.

You can call it "FAKE NEWS," I guess... but the journalist who reported it has a pretty credible history. It's not uncommon for "unnamed" sources to be used in legit journalism, as no one would have any insider information if they couldn't be trusted not to give the actual source of the info up. Note that "unnamed" and "anonymous" are two very, very different things.


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> The Globe & Mail reported it, based on unnamed sources.
> 
> You can call it "FAKE NEWS," I guess... but the journalist who reported it has a pretty credible history. It's not uncommon for "unnamed" sources to be used in legit journalism, as no one would have any insider information if they couldn't be trusted not to give the actual source of the info up. Note that "unnamed" and "anonymous" are two very, very different things.



Funny how when the Duffy affair came out, those on the right were asking the same questions Lumber did and essentially dismissing exactly what you wrote ballz and those on the Liberal side were out for blood holding Stephen Harper ultimately responsible.

Hypocrisy is quite the circle...

(not calling you a hypocrite ballz just the situation that reeks of it from both sides)


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons. It's all conjecture that it was because she wouldn't play Liberal hard ball.
> 
> He hasn't said anything about it, because in my scenario, what he "asked" the AG was incriminating. If he admits to any type of conversation, even one he had in naive ignorance, theyd be all over him. Better just to be quiet.
> 
> ...



Come on Lumber, that sounds like bad PR lines the Liberals are spouting.  I try to keep my politics as level as I can and I've defended JT's actions in the past but there is way too much smoke here and the liberals are trying to tell everyone there is no fire while the fire trucks are blaring behind them.  They are not looking good in all of this and they are managing this like a goat rodeo. 

If it isn't that bad then they dropped the ball on how to handle this.  Someone pointed it out that the cover up is worse than the crime.  They are not doing themselves any favours at all.


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Feb 2019)

>For all I know, this is how it went down:

Ah.  One of those harmless "'I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go" moments.


----------



## brihard (18 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons.



Oh come on. Equally respectable? Certainly. Equally important? Dude, it's not even in the same league, never mind the same ballpark. We don't have to like that fact, but VAC is a second tier ministry and that's just a political reality. Anything that doesn't give that due recognition and consideration in the math on this is wilful self deception. Past ministers of justice? St. Laurent. PET. Turner. Chretien. Clarke. Campbell. Rock. MacKay. Nicholson. Six of thsoe were PM at some point subsequently. MacKay was a party leader and definitely isn't out of the running yet for potential future PM. Meanwhile you look at the list of Ministers of Veterans Affairs and there just isn't anything close to the same degree of political prominence, clout, or success there. Kim Campbell is the only one I can find who has ever served as MVA and as PM- but she also had Justice and National Defense straddling that brief stint with VAC.

Face facts. Always face facts, even if they're undesirable, inconvenient, or lead to unlikable conclusions about other things we hold dear. Any position not built on a premise of fact is going to be wobbly.


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Face facts.



That fact is that VAC only serves a very small percentage of Canadians. 

Justice has an overarching effect on ALL Canadians.

As you said, not even in the same league.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Face facts. Always face facts, even if they're undesirable, inconvenient, or lead to unlikable conclusions about other things we hold dear. Any position not built on a premise of fact is going to be wobbly.


You _do_  know that this is a Politics thread, right?


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Feb 2019)

Breaking news: Gerald Butts has resigned, but denies he did anything wrong.

Hope the bus tires don't leave too many tread marks on him.


----------



## brihard (18 Feb 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Breaking news: Gerald Butts has resigned, but denies he did anything wrong.
> 
> Hope the bus tires don't leave too many tread marks on him.



He was 'senior political advisor'. So given the recent missteps, either his advice was not trusted, or it was trusted and it was garbage advice. Given that we have here is indicative of an 'oops' versus an 'I told you so", it looks like a spot has been found for him under the bus.

I, for one, look forward to the next three days of political 'butts' jokes, because at heart I am still a juvenile.


----------



## Remius (18 Feb 2019)

And the mess gets bigger.  Now the PM will say he accepted his resignation.  How many bets that in a few weeks when this gets worse he'll say he fired him. 

Sigh.


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons. It's all conjecture that it was because she wouldn't play Liberal hard ball.



In Canada, even the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities had more status than Veterans’ Affairs.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> He was 'senior political advisor'. So given the recent missteps, either his advice was not trusted, or it was trusted and it was garbage advice. Given that we have here is indicative of an 'oops' versus an 'I told you so", it looks like a spot has been found for him under the bus.
> 
> I, for one, look forward to the next three days of political 'butts' jokes, because at heart I am still a juvenile.



Besides being JT close friend, he also appears to have been the "PMO" basically running the show. Likely it was a lot of his "smart ideas" that got them into this mess. These people are often to smart for their own good and won't take the clear path, but will try to game the system because they believe they are inherently smarter than us.


----------



## Rifleman62 (18 Feb 2019)

This was posted 5 hours ago, just before Butts resigned.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/are-these-the-answers-of-a-prime-minister-whos-done-nothing-wrong/ar-BBTLdcp?li=AAggNb9&ocid=iehp

*Are these the ‘answers’ of a Prime Minister who’s done nothing wrong?* - 18 Feb 19

Editor’s note: _The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft. Andrew MacDougall is a London-based columnist, commentator and consultant at Trafalgar Strategy. He was formerly director of communications to Stephen Harper.
_
When ace reporter Bob Fife rings you at 9:30 in the morning to get a comment for an exclusive in the next day’s paper it’s time to cancel your plans. Believe me, I know from experience. It means something big— something painful—is in the offing. And while I’m not privy to the PMO discussion following Fife’s Feb. 6 call, I can say the carefully-crafted response which appeared in the Globe and Mail’s exclusive the next morning did nothing to kill the story. Au contraire, it has produced a series of shifting explanations over subsequent days for something Trudeau’s office insists never even happened.

So, why hasn’t the PMO managed to kill the story? Given the building is stacked with political ninjas the temptation is to say they haven’t succeeded for a good reason: what Fife, Steven Chase, and Sean Fine have reported is true. How can I make that claim? How about we put ourselves in the Trudeau PMO’s shoes to review all the ways the office has been giving credence to the SNC-Lavalin story. Hint: it’s not what they say, it’s what they’re not saying.

On Feb. 6, the allegation is made that your office “pressed” Jody Wilson-Raybould to “abandon” the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. This being the same SNC-Lavalin which, as you’ll know, has littered the public lobbying registry with notices of meetings with your senior staff to discuss having the law changed in such a way that could benefit it in dealing with its current legal woes.

You’ll also know that your government subsequently buried a legal remedy into the most recent budget bill to do SNC (and others, in theory) a solid. And you’ll know that SNC barged straight back into your office after the independent Director of the Public Prosecution Service subsequently ruled out using that new legal remedy to SNC’s potential advantage (again, see: registry, lobbying).

What’s more, as a sharp PMO-type, you’ll know that Wilson-Raybould chose to append a very unusual letter to her surprise departure from the Department of Justice during the recent cabinet shuffle, a letter that went out of its way to state that it is a “pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political influence and uphold the highest levels of public confidence”. Forget the letter’s long lauding of her record on justice policy. Why would the outgoing attorney general even think to mention the bit about the “perception of political influence”?

Anyway, knowing all of that unhelpful context, and knowing that it’s a very serious accusation being levelled by Fife et al.—indeed, one that, if proven, could be criminal—you would have every interest in being as definitive as possible in your response. If nothing fitting the Globe’s description or characterization happened between PMO and Wilson-Raybould you would get on the phone with Fife tout de suite and put as many facts as you could into a background chat with him to counter his narrative and, if he isn’t ultimately convinced, then go on the record to shout your clear denial from the rooftops. Something like: “The accusation is categorically false. At no point did the Prime Minister of his office in any way, shape, or form direct or pressure the attorney general on the question of SNC-Lavalin.”

But you didn’t do that.

There is absolutely no sign of serious background engagement by you or your office in the original Globe story. Nor do there appear to be any invitations extended to talk to “Jody” to set things straight, which you would have gladly offered to do to clear up something that didn’t happen. No, instead, you give the public a brief piece of legalese: “The Prime Minister’s Office did not direct the attorney general to draw any conclusions on this matter.” The statement sounds definitive (“did not direct”) but isn’t, as it evades the actual allegation (“pressed”), which is still problematic. Your answer leaves the impression that something did happen between the two parties.

Fine. Even the best political office can fluff the initial response. Sometimes it’s left to the Prime Minister to kill a story stone dead. And as luck would have it, Trudeau was in front of the press on the day the story broke. But Trudeau didn’t kill the story stone dead. He didn’t even try.

“The allegations reported in the story are false,” Trudeau told reporters, delivering what appeared to be a well-drilled line. “At no time did I or my office direct the current or previous attorney general to make any particular decision in this matter.” Trudeau’s line sure sounds better, given the use of the word “false”, but it’s not actually an improvement, given that what Trudeau describes as “false” isn’t what was alleged in the first place. It’s misdirection, i.e. a big red flag to every reporter able to draw breath.

And, right on cue, every reporter listening to Trudeau followed up with the obvious question as to whether his office “pressed” or “pressured” Wilson-Raybould. And instead of being clear and ruling out pressure of any kind, Trudeau reverted to his narrow script: “At no time did we [i.e. himself and the PMO] direct the attorney-general, current or previous”.

This, friends, is the “tell”. Trudeau was invited to bat down the allegation—in the flesh, for all to see—and he preferred to stick with his mischaracterization of the allegation. And he did that because he knew that someone credible was out there, someone with inside knowledge, and they were telling a different story (or else the Globe wouldn’t have run the story).

In other words, characterizing the interaction between Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould in a way that wasn’t truthful, i.e. saying there was no pressure, would have been met with a counterpunch from the mystery counterparty (and, by now, everyone in the PMO will be thinking it’s Wilson-Raybould). Trudeau had to duck and hope that his misdirection would be good enough. It wasn’t, as the front page of every newspaper and lead item on every broadcast will have confirmed to the PMO.

At this point, the PMO is choked. The press isn’t buying what they have to sell, because what they have to sell doesn’t address the issue. For her part, Wilson-Raybould isn’t commenting at all, which isn’t helpful if nothing happened because one word of denial from her kills the story. That she is remaining silent speaks volumes, and the press knows it. If you’re the PMO, this is the point in a scandal when you root around the sofa cushions in the hopes of finding a fact you haven’t yet deployed to your favour. It’s when you look for a piece of news that you can put out to change the channel.

And when all you find is lint and spare change and nothing better to watch, you begin to contemplate switching to the dark arts. However, before you go there, you decide to trot out the big guns—the vaunted “senior government officials” (Ottawa code for “PMO”)—in an attempt to fill in as much detail as you can about the interactions between PMO and Justice without contradicting your public line that no direction was given.

This leads to the Feb. 8 exclusive in the Globe and Mail, which confirmed that discussions were held with Wilson-Raybould about the government’s options with respect to SNC-Lavalin. The senior government officials go as far as to say there was “vigorous debate” about SNC-Lavalin, but this wasn’t to be misconstrued as “pressure” or direction. A “robust discussion” is not “pressure” they pleaded. Given Wilson-Raybould’s continuing silence, it’s not a stretch to say this is the PMO relating its side of events in the hope that one woman’s “pressure” can be portrayed as another man’s “robust discussion but no direction now can we please move on”.

But this intervention doesn’t kill the story either, because now it’s clear there was a tetchy debate about SNC Lavalin, something that could easily be felt as pressure by the party on the other end of the conversation. Pressure that could, under the law, be illegal, depending on its exact shape and form. In other words, the story is now a five-alarm fire going into the weekend, when the Sunday political chat shows are going to be picking it apart in Zapruder-like detail. Remember those dark arts you were thinking about deploying? Well, it’s time for the dirty deed to get done.

On Feb. 9 Canada wakes up to a story in the Canadian Press relaying through unnamed “insiders” how Wilson-Raybould was shuffled from Justice to Veterans because she had become a “thorn in the side of the cabinet”, “difficult to get along with”, and had “always sort of been in it for herself”, i.e. “everything” was very “Jody-centric”. As far as character assassinations go it was fairly comprehensive, albeit about a month late, given that none of it was whispered on or off-the-record at the time of Wilson-Raybould’s move out of the Justice portfolio.

The ways these muggings usually go—and I had to orchestrate a few in my day—is you ring up an amenable reporter and tell them that if you talk to so-and-so they’ll say such-and-such and hot damn, you’ll have one hell of a story. The one stipulation you make is that no comment from your office must appear in the story, so as not to leave any fingerprints. Well non-deniable ones, anyway.

But the anonymous hit job on Wilson-Raybould goes sideways and stirs the pot up even more. As literally every non-PMO dwelling observer with no dog in the hunt could have anticipated and pointed out, it’s not very on-brand for a feminist, Indigenous relationship-healing prime minister to set his attack dogs on the literal poster child for his values movement. To make matters worse, the Ethics Commissioner has now decided to get involved and opposition MPs on the Justice Committee are wanting to have a look into everything too.

Again, a government confident it had done nothing wrong would welcome MPs getting to the bottom of things because—with the whole Huawei extradition weighing on it already—political interference and the applicability of the rule of law in Canada is suddenly a very relevant topic. A PMO with nothing to hide on such an important question wouldn’t hide.

But the Liberals on the Justice Committee don’t pledge to get to the bottom of it. They don’t support a motion inviting the very people who would know what happened here—i.e. the main players in the PMO, the ones now whispering to newspapers—to come to committee. Instead, they invite Wilson-Raybould’s replacement at Justice, David Lametti, i.e. the guy who’s just been on the Sunday chat shows saying that his boss Trudeau says nothing happened so everything must be tickety-boo. You get three guesses at who asked for that outcome, and the first two don’t count. But again—no one out there is buying it. Not the press, and not even all Liberal MPs. New Brunswick Liberal MP Wayne Long is calling for a full investigation, adding yet another voice to the story. Another voice you can’t manage.

By this point in the tire fire, there is little a PMO can do but lean into the silence of their adversary and hope they never speak. Their silence even tempts you to take liberties with their side of the conversation in the hopes of throttling the story. And so Trudeau flips his previous explanation on its head, saying that if Wilson-Raybould felt improper pressure was being applied she should have complained to him about it, and that he was “disappointed” in her for not calling it to his attention. The fact that she didn’t, he says, suggests nothing at all happened. And while reversing the onus is a legal concept, observers could be forgiven for thinking the Prime Minister’s latest explanation isn’t genuine, what with his refusal to waive Wilson-Raybould’s privilege on the matter. Again, if nothing bad has happened, why not let her speak? To ask the question is to answer it.

But let’s take Trudeau at his word, as some legal commentators and Liberal proxies did. Why didn’t she resign? Other than trying to be a team player, that is? But what, exactly, was Wilson-Raybould supposed to do about it? If the PMO was up in her grill about SNC-Lavalin getting a break was she seriously supposed to assume it was doing it without Trudeau’s knowledge, to say nothing of his direction? The very same Trudeau who hasn’t changed his palace guard? Ever? The same Trudeau who says loudly that Gerry Butts and Katie Telford are he and he are they?

The incompatibility of the multiple explanations adds up, such is the myopia of an office in scandal. Of course, Wilson-Raybould’s silence in the face of this possible criminality didn’t prompt Trudeau to sack her, critics note, poking a giant hole in the new story. No, Trudeau only slotted her into Veterans Affairs, where she still enjoyed his full confidence, he says, despite the mess this whole situation has created. It’s the kind of exquisite bullshit only clever bullshitters up to their necks in bullshit can’t see. Indeed, this is the point in the scandal where the PMO loses sight of all of the incompatible twists and turns in the saga and their impact on the wider world. They just need a line—some line, any line—to get them through the day.

The resulting loss of touch with the mood and reading of the outside world includes their own team in Parliament. A caucus that feels neglected at the best of times is now watching you strafe a former colleague both on and off-the-record. They don’t care that you’re trying to keep one step ahead of the flame, only that you’ve disposed of one of them to further your immediate needs. Spoiler: it doesn’t make them happy.

Especially when Wilson-Raybould—no doubt seething at her portrayal, as hinted at by her father in media interviews—resigns and then lawyers up, with a former Supreme Court Justice, on the way out. Her resignation statement doesn’t mention Trudeau. Despite your efforts working caucus to keep everything on lockdown, social media starts to light up with posts from colleagues supporting their ousted friend.

Now facing an existential crisis, every favour gets called in by PMO. Every bit of leverage on caucus gets used. Ministers and MPs are briefed to keep schtum and let the centre muddle through. Don’t worry what everybody is saying, they’ll say, the only thing that will keep this story going is infighting. So shut up and stick together. Except, that is, for the few loyal soldiers who get tooled up for duty on the cable news shows.

The only thing left for Justin Trudeau to do now is hope that everyone sticks together. He knows Wilson-Raybould will one day speak, he just hopes that day isn’t coming anytime soon. If Wilson-Raybould comes out and confirms the side of the story the PMO has been trying so hard to obscure it will damage the Trudeau government in dire ways.

It will make that Feb. 6 phone call from Bob Fife feel like a picnic.


----------



## Loachman (20 Feb 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> They are burying themselves deeper daily. They'll be looking for something big and controversial, that doesn't do a lot of damage to their base, to knock this off the table.
> 
> Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.



Probably not:

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/20/committee-presses-pause-on-senate-study-of-gun-bill-amid-snc-lavalin-affair/

Senate committee presses pause on gun bill study amid SNC-Lavalin affair

By Tim Naumetz. Published on Feb 20, 2019 8:09am

Fallout from the SNC-Lavalin affair and the resignation of Vancouver Granville Liberal MP Jody Wilson-Raybould as veterans affairs minister on Feb. 12 has thrown a wrench into government plans for quick passage of its contentious new firearm legislation through the Senate.

The Senate National Security and Defence Committee is pausing witness hearings on the bill after only one meeting. The marathon session ending just before midnight Monday drew out perhaps the most dramatic testimony over gun violence since the legislation began its journey through Parliament nearly a year ago.

<snip>

The Senate National Security and Defence committee decided its subcommittee on veterans affairs should look into the rapid succession of veterans affairs ministers over the past several years.

The change in committee plans spurred by the SNC-Lavalin affair could mean Bill C-71 will not make it through the committee until April, given that Parliament sits for only one week in March. The changes also raise questions about whether the bill will be passed before Parliament adjourns for the summer in June. The federal election scheduled for Oct. 21.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Feb 2019)

The importance of capitalization:

Gerald Butts's resignation letter 




> I have resigned as Principal Secretary to The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, PC, MP, Prime Minister of Canada. He has accepted my resignation.
> 
> Recently, anonymous sources have alleged that I pressured the former Attorney General, The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, to assist SNC-Lavalin with being considered for a deferred prosecution agreement. I categorically deny the accusation that I or anyone else in his office pressured Ms. Wilson-Raybould. We honoured the unique role of the Attorney General. At all times, I and those around me acted with integrity and a singular focus on the best interests of all Canadians.
> 
> *The Prime Minister of Canada’s Office* is much larger and more important than any of its staff. I have served it to the best of my abilities, and I have at all times given the Prime Minister free and unfettered advice. I have served the public interest, not the interests of any individual or any narrow private interest of any kind, at any time. Life is full of uncertainties, but I am absolutely certain of that.



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-full-text-of-gerald-buttss-resignation-statement/

The inference that I take from the letter is that Gerald Butts's loyalty is to the PMO - the Prime Minister's Office - and not to the office of the Prime Minister.

Here was me thinking that the person elected to the office of Prime Minister hired people in the Prime Minister's Office to do his or her bidding.


----------



## Loachman (20 Feb 2019)

https://globalnews.ca/news/4973581/trudeau-government-leaks-support-snc-lavalin-wilson-raybould-poll/

February 19, 2019 5:00 am

Trudeau government leaks support in wake of SNC-Lavalin, Wilson-Raybould matter: Ipsos poll

By David Akin	

The Trudeau government is leaking political support in the wake of the resignation of its former justice minister, making its chances of re-election this fall far less certain than they seemed to be at year’s end, according to a new poll provided exclusively to Global News.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s personal approval ratings are down; a declining number of Canadians think his government deserves re-election; and Andrew Scheer’s Conservatives narrowly lead the Liberals on the ballot box question.

“This is the worst couple of weeks the PM has had since the India trip,” said Darrell Bricker, CEO of polling firm Ipsos. “_*The biggest problem is that it hits at what gives the Liberal Party its appeal: the prime minister.*_”

<snip>

Support for the Trudeau Liberals is now at 34 per cent of decided and leaning voters, down four percentage points from a poll Ipsos did in December. In the 2015 election, the Trudeau Liberals won their commanding majority with 39 per cent of the vote.

Scheer’s Conservatives appear to have benefited from this slide. That party is now at 36 per cent support, up three points since the end of 2018.

<snip>

“The big trouble spot is now Ontario, where the Tories have a six point lead over the Liberals,” said Bricker. “The way the vote breaks in Ontario suggests that the Tories are doing well in the 905, where the Liberals won their majority in 2015.”

<snip>

And just 38 per cent of those surveyed believe the Trudeau Liberals deserve re-election, while _*62 per cent agreed that it was time to give another party a chance at governing*_.

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/02/20/trudeau-takes-personal-hit-amid-snc-lavalin-controversy-leger-poll-for-cp/#.XG3rnMR7laT

Trudeau takes personal hit amid SNC-Lavalin controversy: Leger poll for CP

By Kristy Kirkup, The Canadian Press - Feb 20 2019

A new poll conducted by Leger for The Canadian Press shows that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is taking a personal hit in the SNC-Lavalin controversy.

Overall, 41 per cent of respondents believed the prime minister had done something wrong involving the Montreal engineering giant and former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould; 12 per cent believed he hadn't, and 41 per cent said they weren't sure.

https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/case-against-former-snc-exec-stephane-roy-thrown-out-by-quebec-judge-1.1216637

Case against former SNC exec Stephane Roy thrown out by Quebec judge

Feb 19, 2019 The Canadian Press

MONTREAL - A judge has thrown out fraud and bribery charges against a former SNC-Lavalin executive after concluding delays in his trial had become unreasonable.

Quebec court Judge Patricia Compagnone stayed proceedings against Stephane Roy Tuesday. She said the delays created by the prosecution "are an example of the culture of complacency that was deplored by the Supreme Court" in its 2016 Jordan decision.

Roy was facing charges of fraud over $5,000 and bribing a foreign public official in connection with the company's dealings with the regime of the late Libyan dictator, Moammar Gadhafi.

He was charged in 2014, and his trial was scheduled to begin at the end of May. In a hearing last week, his defence invoked the Jordan decision, which set time limits on criminal proceedings.

His case stemmed from the same RCMP Project Assistance investigation that led to charges against SNC-Lavalin. Those charges are fuelling controversy in Ottawa following a report that the Prime Minister's Office pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to help the engineering firm avoid prosecution.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-trudeau-1.5025885

Wilson-Raybould tells Commons she wants to 'speak my truth' on SNC-Lavalin

Kathleen Harris · CBC News · Posted: Feb 20, 2019 11:55 AM ET

Jody Wilson-Raybould told the Commons today she wants to tell her side of the SNC-Lavalin scandal now consuming official Ottawa, but she can't "waive" solicitor-client privilege on her own.

The former justice minister and attorney general rose to explain why she was abstaining from a vote on an NDP motion to hold a public inquiry into alleged political interference in the criminal prosecution of the Quebec-based global engineering firm. Wilson-Raybould said she would refrain from voting because she was personally involved in the matter.

"I understand fully that Canadians want to know the truth and want transparency," she said. "Privilege and confidentiality are not mine to waive, and I hope that I have the opportunity to speak my truth."

<snip>

The NDP motion, which was defeated by the Liberal majority in a 134-160 vote, also called on the government to waive client-solicitor privilege in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

_*Two Liberal MPs, Nathaniel Erskine-Smith and Wayne Long, broke ranks and voted with the opposition.*_

<snip>

Earlier today, Trudeau suggested a public inquiry isn't necessary to get to the bottom of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

<snip>

Liberal caucus chair Francis Scarpaleggia said he has "a lot of faith" in the justice committee process and doesn't think a public inquiry is necessary.

"Personally, I don't see a need for one," he said.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/02/19/why-now-butts-departure-fuels-speculation.html

Why now? Gerald Butts’ departure fuels speculation

By Nicholas KeungImmigration Reporter Tues., Feb. 19, 2019

Gerald Butts’ departure from the Prime Ministers Office has raised questions about what Justin Trudeau’s right-hand man is up to and more specifically what the Liberal government hopes to accomplish with his resignation even as he has denied any wrongdoing in the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

“What we have seen doesn’t go any way toward explaining what actually happened. There’s no indicator that he’s done anything wrong, yet he’s still going. It’s just a mystery to me,” said London-based political commentator Andrew MacDougall, who served as the director of communications for former prime minister Stephen Harper.

<snip>

“There are obviously conversations between the PMO, Butts and Wilson-Raybould. I read his resignation as _*what she’s prepared to say is obviously incompatible with what they’d been saying*_. The fallout will be such that the PMO would be called into question, so Gerry is taking himself out now so he can deal with that without it being pinned to the PMO,” MacDougall said.

“The PM changed his story every day, added different elements to it and kept it going, so the sequence of that adding up makes them not make sense anymore. His resignation comes out of the blue from that point of view. That makes me wonder what his office got,” said MacDougall.

“It just feels like Jody is prepared to say something that doesn’t line up to what they’ve been saying. She’s been quite coy in hinting and thanking her dad for speaking up for her, liking tweets. Clearly she has something to say. The PMO got wind of that. It’s my speculation that it terrified them at the PMO.”

<snip>

“It is a first step of a two-step process. You can say our ex-staffer is going to co-operate and we are going to get to the bottom now. I don’t think they did it with the idea that it’s fine now Butts has resigned and the bloodhounds, the press will stop barking. Obviously not,” he said.

“They want to make it into a ‘he says, she says,’ where there’s no proof, and people are going to make their own judgment.”

<snip>

“The blood is in the water in Ottawa right now,” said MacDougall.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/kelly-mcparland-if-no-one-did-anything-wrong-why-two-resignations-and-a-pmo-in-crisis-mode

Kelly McParland: If no one did anything wrong, why two resignations and a PMO in crisis mode?

Many believe Trudeau would never have entered politics if not for Butts, and might not have succeeded in winning Canada’s highest office without his support

February 18, 2019 9:55 PM EST

Which raises the most intriguing aspect of Butts’s departure. He is, it has been widely reported, one of the prime minister’s closest friends. They’ve been pals since university days at McGill. A lot of people believe Trudeau would never have entered politics if not for Butts, and might not have succeeded in winning Canada’s highest office without his support and advice.

And yet he’s quitting, not over some egregiously misappropriate decision or action, but over something he, Trudeau and the Liberal party insist never happened. Butts not only dismissed the suggestion he acted inappropriately, but maintained the opposite.

<snip>

All of which raises a very curious question. If Butts did absolutely nothing wrong; if neither he, the prime minister nor anyone else acted improperly in any manner; if this whole thing is, in essence, a figment of the imagination of Jody Wilson-Raybould, why is Butts stepping down and leaving the prime minister flailing for a solution to the worst crisis he’s faced since becoming prime minister?

Wilson-Raybould, remember, hasn’t said a word about the expanding disaster. When demoted from one of cabinet’s top posts, she kept her mouth closed about the reason, though she was clearly unhappy. There was no indication she planned to quit the new, lesser post as veterans affairs minister until Trudeau more or less forced her hand, suggesting that her continued presence in cabinet indicated she was OK with the way things were working out.

<snip>

Given the absence of anything resembling a smoking gun, it would seem sensible, therefore, to wait and hear what she has to say before breaking up the partnership that largely put the Liberals in power. The question of why Butts isn’t doing that, and why Trudeau agreed with his decision, remains dangling over the whole odd affair even as Butts packs his bags.

It usually takes governments several mandates to stumble into the sort of trouble the Liberals are in. Usually it comes from age, exhaustion and the accumulation of political baggage. Jean Chretien won three majorities before the sponsorship scandal caught up to him, and he had retired before voters eventually removed his successor from office. Stephen Harper was prime minister for nine years before voters decided a change was in order. Trudeau has been in power for just three-quarters of a mandate, and the Lavalin controversy is just the latest in a string of serious missteps. A determined optimist might note that Lavalin has at least diverted attention from the furor over the detention of Huawei executive Meng Wanzhou, but it’s difficult to see much comfort arising from that fact.

<snip>

It’s a daunting tally of challenges the Liberals face as they gear up for the election that’s just eight months away. And Trudeau must now confront it without the man rightly or wrongly considered his Svengali. All over something the prime minister and his friend insist never happened.


----------



## TCM621 (20 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The inference that I take from the letter is that Gerald Butts's loyalty is to the PMO - the Prime Minister's Office - and not to the office of the Prime Minister.
> 
> Here was me thinking that the person elected to the office of Prime Minister hired people in the Prime Minister's Office to do his or her bidding.



I think you will find that Gerald Butts' loyalty is to Trudeau. Trudeau has called him "a best friend" and they have been friends since college. He is rare in that is loyalty is to JT the person rather than JT the PM or leader of the Liberal Party. While, I think this whole business is just more shady Liberal crap, I can't fault Butts for falling on his sword to help a friend. I would do it but I would do it if I was JT as well. I've never been PM but I have taken the heat for my subordinates f*@k ups enough times, you know like a leader is supposed to.


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2019)

The latest, if you have a subscription to the Globe online ...


> *Wilson-Raybould told cabinet SNC-Lavalin pressure was improper*
> 
> Former attorney-general voiced concerns in Tuesday meeting about officials pressing her to order a settlement; speaking in the House of Commons, she hoped to have solicitor-client privilege waived so she could ‘speak my truth’ ...


op:


----------



## Furniture (21 Feb 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> It may cost them seats in Ontario as well, where they just tossed a provincial government that was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The CPC have already showed us that it's possible to get a majority without strong support in Quebec so long as you hold the West and Ontario.



It appears that I may have accidentally stumbled into some insight into the mood of Ontario voters. 

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-polls-snclavalin-1.5026798

Analysis
First post-SNC-Lavalin polls look bad for Trudeau Liberals

Conservatives gaining, Liberals sliding in first polls published since SNC-Lavalin affair erupted
Éric Grenier · CBC News · Posted: Feb 21, 2019 4:00 AM ET | Last Updated: 6 hours ago

<snip>

Liberals hurting in Quebec, but mostly Ontario

While the impact of the affair has sapped the Liberals in every part of the country, there is a difference between what the polls are saying in the two largest provinces that inevitably will decide the next federal election.

Across the three surveys, the Conservatives made gains in both Ontario and Quebec while the Liberals lost support. (The NDP also is down consistently in Quebec and the Bloc Québécois up, but that was a pre-existing trend that probably has little to do with the SNC-Lavalin affair.)

The swing was more pronounced in Ontario than it was in Quebec, where concerns about the impact of the affair on SNC-Lavalin's future have been more prevalent. The Conservatives gained between three and six points in Ontario in the three surveys, averaging a gain of just under five points. The Liberals lost between three and seven points, for an average loss of just over five points.

Both Ipsos and Léger recorded slides for the Liberals in Ontario sizeable enough to be statistically significant.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Feb 2019)

Interesting and highly prophetic study: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/publications/attorney_general_prosecution_function.htm 
<snip>
"The most important of these constitutional conventions is that although the Attorney General is a cabinet minister, he or she acts independently of the cabinet in the exercise of the prosecution function. This convention is now so firmly entrenched in the Canadian political system that any deviation would likely lead to the resignation of the Attorney General or would, at the very least, spark a constitutional crisis. [19] The resignation of the Attorney General would expose any attempted interference by the premier or the cabinet both to the public and especially to the press, and would further entrench the convention of institutional independence. As Edwards said:

_ It must be emphasised that to recognise the inevitability of dismissal or resignation in these circumstances in no sense represents a weakening of the Attorney General’s constitutional position. What it entails is the removal of the issue from the confidential environment of Cabinet deliberations and its exposure to the full glare of public attention.[20]

It could be argued that the very fact that it would take a resignation to uncover possible interference with the independence of the Attorney General reinforces Edwards’ contention that all depends on the strength of character and personal integrity of the Attorney General — a person of lesser worth would simply cave in to the cabinet directive or the demands of the premier, and the matter would never see the light of day. <snip>

Edit: think about the Norman case here. Was the AG also misled by the PMO, PMO legal staff?? 

_


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Feb 2019)

And this from Canada's top civil servant/bureaucrat (source), speaking to the HoC justice committee today ...
op:


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Feb 2019)

Let’s see what she does now. I’m especially interested to know why Trudeau claims privilege, then cabinet confidence.  On CTV, Mr. Mulcair states that Clerk PCO was sent in “on a mission.”  If that mission was to pop smoke, he sent up a flare instead. 

And how does this guy get off so easy with trying to change the subject to “assassination” and “someone’s going to get shot”.  The man is a bureaucratic version of an ND.


----------



## Loachman (21 Feb 2019)

Top civil servant slams SNC-Lavalin media report as erroneous, 'defamatory'

Privy Council Office clerk Michael Wernick delivers blunt testimony at justice committee

Kathleen Harris CBC News Posted: Feb 21, 2019 10:28 AM ET

Canada's top civil servant has refuted a bombshell media report that alleged political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, claiming it included "errors" and "unfounded speculation" and was "defamatory."

Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick was referring to a Feb. 7 Globe and Mail report that touched off a political scandal and triggered the resignation of cabinet minister Jody Wilson-Raybould and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's principal secretary, Gerry Butts.

"I'm here to say to you that the Globe and Mail article contains errors, unfounded speculation and, in some cases, is simply defamatory," he said.

(Of course, continuing prevention of Jody Raybould-Wilson's ability to tell her side is the best means of proving the accuracy of the Clerk's testimony - Loachman)

<snip>

In a Dec. 19, 2018 call with Wilson-Raybould, Wernick said he provided information on the SNC-Lavalin file based partly on reports in the business press warning the company could close or move if the prosecution went ahead. That could have major implications for employees, suppliers and pensioners, said Wernick, adding that he told Wilson-Raybould that the prime minister and "a lot of her colleagues" were anxious about what they were hearing and reading.

"I can tell you with complete assurance that my view of those conversations is that they were within the boundaries of what's lawful and appropriate. I was informing the minister of context. She may have another view of the conversation, but that's something the ethics commissioner could sort out," he said.

Wernick repeatedly insisted there was no inappropriate pressure placed on Wilson-Raybould at any time. He also said that if she had felt she was being put under pressure at any point, she could have filed a complaint with the ethics commissioner or reported any perceived wrongdoing to the prime minister.

In his opening remarks to the committee, Wernick said he's worried about the state of politics in Canada right now, citing the threat of foreign interference in the coming election and the use of words like 'treason' and 'traitor' in political discourse.

"Those are the words that lead to assassination," he said. "I'm worried that somebody's going to get shot this year during the political campaign."

("Fearmongering" is an oft-heard accusation that Liberals like to apply to those who disagree with some of their ideas, policies, and actions - Loachman)

<snip>

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jody-wilson-raybould-tells-cabinet-why-she-would-not-intervene-in-snc/

Hidden behind a paywall, but excerpts have been posted by Spencer Fernando at https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/02/21/breaking-fife-chase-report-wilson-raybould-told-liberal-cabinet-she-felt-it-was-wrong-for-anyone-including-the-prime-minister-to-bring-up-snc-lavalin-with-her/ :

According to a source with knowledge of the cabinet discussions, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said the director of the prosecution service rejected a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin based on how the law applies to the company’s case. The Liberal government had changed the Criminal Code to allow for deferred prosecutions in which a company admits wrongdoing and pays a fine, but avoids a trial. Under Canada’s new deferred-prosecution agreement law, prosecutors are not allowed to consider national economic interests when deciding whether to settle with a company.

Mr. Trudeau has acknowledged he raised concerns about the economic impact that a conviction could have on SNC-Lavalin when he met privately with the then-justice minister and attorney-general on Sept. 17, two weeks after the director of public prosecutions decided to move toward a trial.

The fact that prosecutors had already informed the Quebec company of its decision before the meeting between Mr. Trudeau and Ms. Wilson-Raybould meant the only remaining question was whether the attorney-general would override federal prosecutors and publicly instruct them to cut a deal.

Once prosecutors decided in early September to move to trial, Ms. Wilson-Raybould told cabinet she felt it was wrong for anyone – including the Prime Minister, members of his staff and other government officials – to raise the issue with her, the source said. Another source added that Ms. Wilson-Raybould would not budge from her position at the cabinet meeting.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lametti-justice-committee-snc-lavalin-1.5027617

SNC-Lavalin lawyers rushed to prosecutors before MPs knew of proposed law change

Andy Blatchford The Canadian Press Posted: Feb 20, 2019 8:17 PM ET

Representatives for SNC-Lavalin hustled to connect with federal prosecutors after the Liberal government quietly introduced a proposal last year to allow corporations to strike settlement deals and avoid criminal prosecution, court documents show.

The company's lawyers acted so quickly to position their client for a so-called remediation agreement that they contacted prosecutors weeks before lawmakers, even Liberals, were even aware the Trudeau government had tucked the legislation into its 582-page omnibus budget bill.

The Montreal-based engineering and construction firm is at the centre of a controversy that has enveloped the Prime Minister's Office. Since last week, the government has seen the high-profile resignations of one cabinet member — former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, who became the minister of veterans affairs in January — and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's principal secretary, Gerald Butts.

SNC-Lavalin worked hard to avoid criminal proceedings by proposing a remediation agreement, but in September the prosecutor's office declined to invite the company to negotiate. A guilty verdict on bribery and corruption charges has been characterized as an existential threat for SNC-Lavalin and its employees because the company would be barred from bidding on government contracts in Canada for 10 years. Much of its work is in designing, building and operating public infrastructure.

The company lobbied federal officials, including in the Prime Minister's Office, to put remediation agreements into the law in the first place. The tools, known as deferred prosecution agreements in other jurisdictions, had already been enacted in the United States and the United Kingdom.

<snip>

Court documents filed last month by the firm's lawyers say they contacted the Public Prosecution Service of Canada "in or about the month of April 2018, shortly after the Government of Canada introduced the proposed legislative changes to implement a remediation agreement regime."

_*This would have been weeks before many lawmakers - including at least one Liberal - tasked with studying the amendment were even aware of its existence.*_

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeau-and-the-ides-of-february

LILLEY: Trudeau and the Ides of February
Brian Lilley Published: February 21, 2019 

<snip>

Trudeau has gone from saying he did not “direct” former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to give a sweetheart deal to SNC-Lavalin to saying he spoke to her and stood up for good jobs across Canada.

Now reports indicate that Wilson-Raybould told her former cabinet colleagues in a closed-door meeting this week that it had been improper for the PM or his staff to continuously raise the issue with her after a decision to take SNC-Lavalin to trial had already been made.

And yet they did.

The Director of Public Prosecutions informed the company on September 4, 2018 that they would not get the special deal that would allow them to avoid trial.

On September 5, Wilson-Raybould met with Trudeau’s now former right-hand man Gerry Butts in the bar at the Chateau Laurier. The reason for the meeting was to discuss SNC-Lavalin.

The PM told his entire caucus that when they hear from Gerry Butts they are hearing from him.

But that meeting wouldn’t be pressure would it?

Trudeau himself met with Wilson-Raybould on the issue on September 17.

The PM doesn’t deny the meeting took place or that the issue was raised. When asked about it he defends his actions saying he was standing up for jobs.

“We will always stand up for good jobs right across this country every step of the way while making sure we respect the independence of the judicial system,” Trudeau said in the House on Wednesday.

I can imagine that the conversation included that strong suggestion that if the company went to trial and was found guilty that thousands of people would lose their jobs.

But that wouldn’t be pressure, would it?

If that was coming from my boss I would take it that way and it seems that Wilson-Raybould did as well.

Trudeau though says nothing inappropriate happened.

Maybe, as Trudeau has said in other instances, she just experienced these interactions differently.

The meetings with Butts and Trudeau were just two possible examples.

What was said by cabinet colleague Bill Morneau, who met with SNC-Lavalin’s CEO to hear all about the economic downside of the company facing prosecution.

What about the senior advisors in the PMO like Mathieu Bouchard and Elder Marques who were on this file and lobbied extensively by the company.

Did they speak with Wilson-Raybould?

If so, what did they say?

There is so much we still don’t know because the PM won’t let Wilson-Raybould “speak her truth” as she put in the House on Wednesday.

Instead, the PM wants us to take him at his word because he is an honourable man.

Isn’t that how they described the men that killed Julius Caesar?

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/jody-wilson-rayboulds-short-commons-speech-gets-standing-applause-from-opposition-parties

Jody Wilson-Raybould's short Commons speech gets standing applause from opposition parties

Throughout the scandal, Wilson-Raybould's relationship with the cabinet and Liberal caucus has been shrouded in mystery

After a lengthy caucus meeting on Wednesday morning that featured the participation of Wilson-Raybould, Liberal MPs emerged to give glowing reviews of their party’s unity and said they were largely happy with what they’d heard in the room.

But just a few hours later, Wilson-Raybould surprised the House of Commons with a statement following a vote on an NDP motion. The motion, defeated by the Liberals, called for a public inquiry into the allegation Wilson-Raybould had been politically pressured while attorney general to intervene in a corruption prosecution against SNC-Lavalin. It also called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to waive solicitor-client privilege over the conversations he and his office had with Wilson-Raybould on the matter.

“I would ask that the record show that I abstain from voting on that matter,” Wilson-Raybould said after the vote was tallied, saying she felt she shouldn’t vote on a matter that involved her personally.

“I have said that I am seeking counsel on this matter of what I can and cannot say,” she went on. “I understand fully that Canadians want to know the truth and want transparency. Privilege and confidentiality are not mine to waive, and I hope that I have the opportunity to speak my truth.”

The short speech prompted standing applause from the opposition parties across the aisle - and silence from her Liberal colleagues.

<snip>

The caucus meeting ran about 45 minutes longer than usual, and Liberal MPs eventually trickled out into a gathering of cameras and reporters. Some deliberately lingered to answer shouted questions from reporters, and each insisted, in their own way, that there is no caucus split in the Liberal Party.

“Everything is fine,” said Liberal MP John McKay.

“I thought it was excellent,” said MP Andrew Leslie when asked how the meeting went.

MP Maryann Mihychuk told the media that “Jody is great” and “we’re all a team of individuals.”

MP Marc Miller said the caucus response to Wilson-Raybould was “very respectful.”

Most Liberals offered no comment, owing to the confidentiality of the caucus meeting.

<snip>

Two Liberal MPs, Nate Erskine-Smith and Wayne Long, broke ranks with their party and voted with the Conservatives and NDP in favour of the motion.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-lawyer-law-society-1.5027143

Can Wilson-Raybould claim solicitor-client privilege over SNC-Lavalin? The jury's out

Failure to renew law society membership could call solicitor-client privilege into question

Elizabeth Thompson CBC News Posted: Feb 21, 2019 4:00 AM ET

Former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould was not formally a lawyer in the eyes of the legal profession at the time the decision was made to continue with the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin on charges of fraud and corruption, CBC News has learned.

For some, that calls into question her decision to cite solicitor-client privilege in refusing to comment on the specifics of the growing controversy over the Quebec-based engineering firm's criminal case.

While Wilson-Raybould completed law school and practised for several years as a lawyer, the Law Society of British Columbia says Wilson-Raybould didn't renew her membership in the law society in January 2016.

"It means she cannot practice law in B.C," said David Jordan, spokesman for the law society. "She could not call herself a lawyer in B.C and would not have any of the benefits of the solicitor-client privilege in B.C. "

But one expert says even a non-lawyer can be bound by solicitor-client privilege if they're serving as an attorney-general — with the government itself as a client.

Andrew Flavelle Martin, assistant professor at the Peter Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, said a non-lawyer attorney general is the one person who can provide legal advice without being a member of a law society.

While most people named attorney general at the federal or provincial level have been practicing lawyers, it's not a requirement and there have been non-lawyer AGs in the past.

"So she's right to say that solicitor-client privilege prevents her from talking because she was providing legal advice, even though at the time she wasn't licensed," Martin said.

And since Wilson-Raybould is not a member of a law society, she couldn't be disciplined for breaching solicitor-client privilege, he added.

<snip>

Gavin MacKenzie, author of Lawyers and Ethics: Professional Responsibility and Discipline, said the question of solicitor-client privilege in Wilson-Raybould's case hinges on what role she was playing at the time.

Advising the government on a legal question — such as whether a proposed measure is constitutional — would be covered by solicitor-client privilege, said MacKenzie. That wouldn't be the case, he said, with decisions that have to be made by attorneys general themselves, such as whether to continue a prosecution.

"Generally speaking, conversations with others in government about those decisions aren't subject to solicitor-client privilege, whether she is a member of the law society or not. Those are functions of the attorney general that are separate."

Kent Roach, a law professor at the University of Toronto, said the advice an attorney general offers the government is usually the result of the work of many lawyers.

"Even if you assume that the attorney general was not herself acting as a lawyer, I think in most cases there's going to be senior officials in the room whose advice the attorney general is relying upon," he said. "And so it would seem to me that in those situations you probably would still have attorney-client privilege.

"It has not, to my knowledge, been authoritatively resolved."


----------



## FJAG (22 Feb 2019)

So let me sum it up if I can:

1. The Director of Public Prosecutions decided against offering a remediation agreement to SNC and therefore were proceeding to prosecution;

2. SNC started lobbying the Liberals heavily that the world would end if they didn't get a deal;

3. The Liberals, lobbied by SNC, pass a new provision in the CCC that prosecutors can offer to defer prosecution but in deciding whether or not to do so the "national economic interest" is not to be considered;

4. The PM, Butts, Wernick and all their buddies hit on the AG and tell her the world will end if the prosecution proceeds;

5. The AG tells everyone in cabinet last Sep after the decision was made that she felt it would be wrong for anyone to talk to her about the issue to get her to overturn the prosecutors decision;

6.  Notwithstanding that, Wernick (and undoubtedly others) continued to jabber at her that if the prosecution went head the world would end; 

7. According to Wernick, all of that is properly acceptable and just a minor disagreement which the ethics commissioner can sort out and oh, by the way, all this kind of negativity is what leads to politicians being assassinated.

What kind of morons does Wernick think Canadians are? 

Personally I'm one of those people who thinks that not only should justice be done but should be seen to be done. Seems to me the only people involved who understood that concept were the prosecutors and the AG who were prepared to prosecute a very serious breach of law by a rapacious company. I applaud them for doing the right thing under what is clearly pressure from the Liberal caucus and, surprisingly, the Clerk of the Privy Council.

 :cheers:


----------



## Furniture (22 Feb 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> So let me sum it up if I can:
> 
> 1. The Director of Public Prosecutions decided against offering a remediation agreement to SNC and therefore were proceeding to prosecution;
> 
> ...



Nice summary, paints a fairly unflattering at best picture of the goings on in government. 

The only thing I disagree with is the highlighted part, the federal public service was under attack by the CPC when they were in power. It seems quite natural that a very senior public servant would take sides with the party that doesn't represent a threat to the public service. Not to say it's appropriate, but it really isn't surprising to me.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (22 Feb 2019)

Yes, nice summary FJAG.

However, just a few points:

First of all, SNC couldn't get or discuss remediation with the DPP before the law was amended, so your point one should come somewhere between three and four. The point one should read: SNC Lavalin charged with bribery in Khaddafi affair.

As for Mr. Wernick, what I found most amazing is his claim of not liking the current state of governance. I agree with him but probably in the opposite direction. He is probably talking about politicians trying to tell him how to do his job and wants it to stop. I on the other hand think the lack of governance is the abdication of Parliament of its duty to keep the government in check,i.e. elected officials (ministers) *and* the civil service, so they don't go overboard with stupid pet projects using MY money.


----------



## Infanteer (22 Feb 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I on the other hand think the lack of governance is the abdication of Parliament of its duty to keep the government in check,i.e. elected officials (ministers) *and* the civil service, so they don't go overboard with stupid pet projects using MY money.



It sounds like that was what was starting to happen - a caucus revolt.

One can't help think that if this was Australia, there would have been a Prime Ministerial handover or two by now.


----------



## Half Full (22 Feb 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> 4. The PM, Butts, Wernick and all their buddies hit on the AG and tell her the world will end if the prosecution proceeds;
> ...
> 6.  Notwithstanding that, Wernick (and undoubtedly others) continued to jabber at her that if the prosecution went head the world would end;



It is more than just a conversation between the PM, Butts, the Clerk and AG...let's call it what it is...an implied order...I learned the effects of these kind of orders that seem innocuous at first when I was XO Sea Training.  I remember sitting in the wardroom and just mentioning to the supply officer that the other ship that we were on had Coke Zero...but their ship did not.  I also mentioned that it was too bad they hadn't arranged to have some sent over during our upcoming RAS (in about 1 hr). So now advance 3hrs, after the RAS, and low and behold there is Coke Zero in the Wardroom...to which I was very grateful...however the Sea Training supply Officer was pissed!  He pulled me aside and told me that he had spent the last 2 weeks getting the supply department to think ahead and put through the proper request/paper work prior to transferring any material between ships, and that my demand..although not official, with my position of authority, the ship's SYO felt that he needed to break some rules and get it done no matter what, so he simply bypassed all the official lines and called directly over to the other ship's SYO to get it done.  Since that point I have been very careful with what I say around junior members so that they don't think that I want them to break the rules to make something happen just because I wish it were so.  So I can very much see how the AG may have felt pressure from this implied order from the PM and crowd.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Feb 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver


> First of all, SNC couldn't get or discuss remediation with the DPP before the law was amended



SNC lobbied the Liberals repeatedly to bring in the law in the first place, and so they did hidden in a omnibus Finance Bill.



> The point one should read: SNC Lavalin charged with bribery in Khaddafi affair.



SNC was charged with bribery and fraud wrt Libya."Police allege that between 2001 and 2011 SNC-Lavalin paid nearly $47.7 million to public officials in Libya to influence government decisions. It also charged the company, its construction division and its SNC-Lavalin International subsidiary of defrauding various Libyan organizations of about $129.8 million".

SNC and its executives have had multiple charges filed wrt to several projects. Possibly another pending. Where did this money go? "defrauding various Libyan organizations of about $129.8 million". Did it pass from money received from fraud to money paid out as bribes?

Meanwhile, projects closing, companies leaving in AB, no pipeline as the Liberals try to stack, the Titanic deck chairs, on the corrupt SNC.


----------



## FJAG (22 Feb 2019)

Just a few quick rejoinders to the above.

Oldgateboatdriver. I could have worded it better but I looked at the following:



> Court documents filed last month by the firm's lawyers say they contacted the Public Prosecution Service of Canada "in or about the month of April 2018, shortly after the Government of Canada introduced the proposed legislative changes to implement a remediation agreement regime.



Furniture: You're right. It isn't all that surprising.

Half Full: Bingo. That's it exactly and let me tell you that what happened with the AG was nothing as benign.

Rifleman62: Here's another article on SNC's wrongdoings Court documents filed last month by the firm's lawyers say they contacted the Public Prosecution Service of Canada "in or about the month of April 2018, shortly after the Government of Canada introduced the proposed legislative changes to implement a remediation agreement regime." It includes $100,000 overcontributed to the Liberals in seven years. Boy that's cheap.

In retrospect there should have been a point 6A to my post: 6A AG is fired.

 :cheers:


----------



## Remius (22 Feb 2019)

It is becoming very clear that the PMO does not know how to manage a crisis. 

This story here at CTV about Katie Telford being sued by a former ambassador:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/top-trudeau-adviser-telford-targeted-in-ex-israel-envoy-s-lawsuit-1.4307153

I suspect the PMO is going to have many similar issues (no matter how outlandish or unsubstantiated they may seem) now with all of this coming to light.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Feb 2019)

> "Those are the words that lead to assassination," he said. "I'm worried that somebody's going to get shot this year during the political campaign."



Nice bit of fear mongering and anti-firearms plug there.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Feb 2019)

Half Full said:
			
		

> It is more than just a conversation between the PM, Butts, the Clerk and AG...let's call it what it is...an implied order...I learned the effects of these kind of orders that seem innocuous at first when I was XO Sea Training.  I remember sitting in the wardroom and just mentioning to the supply officer that the other ship that we were on had Coke Zero...but their ship did not.  I also mentioned that it was too bad they hadn't arranged to have some sent over during our upcoming RAS (in about 1 hr). So now advance 3hrs, after the RAS, and low and behold there is Coke Zero in the Wardroom...to which I was very grateful...however the Sea Training supply Officer was pissed!  He pulled me aside and told me that he had spent the last 2 weeks getting the supply department to think ahead and put through the proper request/paper work prior to transferring any material between ships, and that my demand..although not official, with my position of authority, the ship's SYO felt that he needed to break some rules and get it done no matter what, so he simply bypassed all the official lines and called directly over to the other ship's SYO to get it done.  Since that point I have been very careful with what I say around junior members so that they don't think that I want them to break the rules to make something happen just because I wish it were so.  So I can very much see how the AG may have felt pressure from this implied order from the PM and crowd.



"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Feb 2019)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> It sounds like that was what was starting to happen - a caucus revolt.
> 
> One can't help think that if this was Australia, there would have been a Prime Ministerial handover or two by now.



Not just the Aussies, Infanteer.

Theresa May is being whipsawed by her parliament and her party just now.


----------



## Lumber (22 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Nice bit of fear mongering and anti-firearms plug there.



I took that as an unfortunate slip of the tongue in the face of frustration. I don't think it was a carefully embedded soundbite. It sounds really stupid in the headlines.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I took that as an unfortunate slip of the tongue in the face of frustration. I don't think it was a carefully embedded soundbite. It sounds really stupid in the headlines.


Next thing you know there will be soldiers. With guns. On our streets.


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Feb 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> I took that as an unfortunate slip of the tongue in the face of frustration. I don't think it was a carefully embedded soundbite. It sounds really stupid in the headlines.



Really stupid indeed. There's been a whopping 7 assassinations in Canada in the last 150 years (of which it looks like only 3 have been politicians). More people have died from hockey. As far as a slip of the tongue goes it's quite the suggestion to accidentally make.


----------



## Kat Stevens (22 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Really stupid indeed. There's been a whopping 7 assassinations in Canada in the last 150 years (of which it looks like only 3 have been politicians). More people have died from hockey. As far as a slip of the tongue goes it's quite the suggestion to accidentally make.



Sometime it is appropriate to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.


----------



## MarkOttawa (22 Feb 2019)

“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!”
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Thomas-Becket/







Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Feb 2019)

>"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Despite not taking an undergraduate degree in humanities, I'd guess I've read that and read about it 20 or 30 times in my lifetime, the first probably being while in high school.  Who are all these reportedly highly intelligent and highly educated people who apparently failed to understand the lesson?


----------



## FJAG (22 Feb 2019)

A good article from David Moscrop at McLean's:



> Michael Wernick should’ve thought twice before serving up his ‘Cicero moment’
> David Moscrop: The Privy Council clerk’s soliloquy—though not objectively wrong—sowed confusion and suspicion of partisanship. Isn’t that what he’s trying to stop?
> 
> by David Moscrop Feb 22, 2019
> ...



See rest of article here: https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/michael-wernick-shouldve-thought-twice-before-serving-up-his-cicero-moment/

And this article by Colby Cash at the National Post is even better (and less modulated):



> Colby Cosh: Michael Wernick spewed drivel while taking us all for fools
> He made a creepy attempt to persuade Canadians that if they doubt our institutions of government it is them, and not said government, that must be the problem
> 
> Like Michael Wernick, the clerk of the Privy Council, I am a strong believer in the traditions and the strength of our public service. I think, for example, that most of the persons who have occupied his position as the country’s senior mandarin are intelligent, sincere and thoughtful people. It is positively unprecedented for one to appear before a committee of the House of Commons spewing gallons of drivel and frightened non sequiturs, as Wernick did on Thursday, and I would encourage the Canadian public to regard it as a sad anomaly — the sort of personal spectacle from which we, in time, choose to politely avert our eyes. Truly, the ordinary state of our system of government is relative serenity, managed by rational, functioning minds.
> ...



See rest of article here: https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-michael-wernick-spewed-drivel-while-taking-us-all-for-fools?video_autoplay=true

 :cheers:


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Feb 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
> 
> Despite not taking an undergraduate degree in humanities, I'd guess I've read that and read about it 20 or 30 times in my lifetime, the first probably being while in high school.  Who are all these reportedly highly intelligent and highly educated people who apparently failed to understand the lesson?



Pale and stale.  We don't do that anymore.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Feb 2019)

Personally, when I hear the sentence "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest", I can't help but recall only a Blackadder episode.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InWKrIQp7qw

 ;D


----------



## FJAG (23 Feb 2019)

Another good article outlining the sequence of events from McLean's



> How many times did Jody Wilson-Raybould need to say ‘No’?
> Anne Kingston: Powerful men repeatedly refused to accept Wilson-Raybould’s authority. This isn’t a ‘he said, she said.’ It’s a ‘he, he, he-said.’
> by Anne Kingston Feb 23, 2019
> 
> ...



Full article here: https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-many-times-did-jody-wilson-raybould-need-to-say-no/

 :cheers:


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Feb 2019)

How many employees does SNC actual have? I am sure they sub contract most everything to excavation, steel fabricators, electricial etc contractors as does ever engineering firm.

The Liberals changed the law once to benefit Liberal contributor SNC. Again?

https://canadanewsmedia.ca/2019/02/24/ottawas-review-of-integrity-regime-rules-opens-door-for-snc-lavalin-the-globe-and-mail/

*Ottawa's review of Integrity Regime rules opens door for SNC-Lavalin *– The Globe and Mail - 24 Feb 19

The Trudeau government is considering changes to ethical procurement rules that stipulate how long a company can be banned from bidding on federal contracts, a revision of policy that one expert says could offer Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin another means of coping with the fraud and corruption charges it faces. SNC-Lavalin, the Quebec engineering giant at the centre of the Wilson-Raybould affair, faces the charges stemming from an RCMP investigation into its business dealings in Libya. If convicted, it could be banned from bidding on federal contracts for 10 years.

Public Services and Procurement Canada is proposing granting itself more flexibility in deciding how long a company is banned from bidding when convicted.

SNC-Lavalin has been seeking a negotiated settlement in which a company admits wrongdoing and pays a fine, but avoids a trial. Last September, however, the federal director of public prosecutions rejected the request and informed the company the prosecution would continue. Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office have denied putting inappropriate pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould when she was justice minister and attorney-general on the case. In the ensuing fallout, she resigned from cabinet and Gerald Butts, principal secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, stepped down. Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has launched an inquiry into the matter.

Even if SNC-Lavalin is convicted, a rewrite underway at Public Services could eliminate a one-size-fits-all punishment period for companies found guilty of offences that run afoul of the federal Integrity Regime. This is a set of rules to address how to treat companies convicted of offences such as corruption, bribery, bid-rigging and money laundering, rules that have evolved over the past decade to ensure Canada “does business only with ethical suppliers,” according to Public Services’ website. Public Services held a 33-day public consultation last fall on a proposed new “ineligibility and suspension policy” that would leave it to officials in the department to set the ban period.

These proposed new rules say the Registrar of Ineligibility and Suspension at Public Services will decide what length of suspension applies, taking into account “the seriousness of the conduct … balanced against the steps taken by the [company] to ensure that similar conduct does not recur.” Other factors to be considered include the extent to which senior management at the company were involved in the offences for which the firm was convicted; whether the company is a repeat offender; the steps the firm has taken to address the wrongdoing; and whether it has implemented remedial measures.The revised policy circulated for consultation by Ottawa included a statement saying the department expected this would take effect “in early 2019.” 

A Public Services spokesman this past weekend said the department is still reviewing what it heard from Canadians. “We have consulted on amendments to the current policy, one of which would give flexibility in suspension decisions,” Charles Drouin, a spokesman for Public Services said. “We are currently analyzing feedback received during the consultation.” Public Services could not immediately answer whether this revised policy – that has yet to be approved – could be of help to SNC-Lavalin.

Timothy Cullen, an Ottawa-based lawyer at McMillan, said the revised policy could be applied to SNC-Lavalin if it is convicted on the charges it faces. “Under the new policy, whenever it takes effect … yes, it is quite possible that under the new policy they could receive lesser or no suspension,” he said, adding it’s not yet known how the department will wield this policy. Mr. Cullen said the department would also take into account the conduct of SNC-Lavalin since the charges were laid and its co-operation with authorities and other factors. SNC-Lavalin could not be reached Sunday for comment on this proposed procurement policy revision.

The Montreal firm faces one count of corruption under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and one count of fraud under the Criminal Code. It’s alleged SNC paid millions of dollars in bribes to public officials in Libya between 2001 and 2011 to secure government contracts. The engineering company says executives who were responsible for the wrongdoing have left the company, and it has reformed ethics and compliance rules. The list of companies that currently face procurement bans by Ottawa is very small – three firms – and includes no major companies.

Opposition MPs are urging the House of Commons justice committee to call Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s former chief of staff Jessica Prince to testify about a key meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s top advisers. The Prime Minister’s Office confirmed on Saturday that chief of staff Katie Telford and Mr. Butts met Dec. 18 with Ms. Prince, who was Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff at the time, says it appears pressure was also exerted on her staff. “It now seems that [Ms. Prince] also has been subject to perhaps inordinate pressure by getting her to work on Jody so this may be more indication of the level of pressure on Jody,” NDP MP Murray Rankin said of Ms. Prince. Michael Wernick, the Privy Council Clerk, told the House of Commons justice committee last Thursday that the Dec. 18 meeting with Ms. Prince was one of three conversations that he predicts the former justice minister has concerns about.


All of these conversations took place after Kathleen Roussel, the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, had already informed SNC-Lavalin on Sept. 4 that she would not negotiate a settlement and would instead proceed with prosecution. Mr. Wernick confirmed in testimony last week that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was unwilling to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with SNC-Lavalin despite repeated efforts by Mr. Trudeau and other senior officials to revisit the question of the company’s pending criminal prosecution on fraud and corruption charges. He said the former justice minister and attorney-general was warned several times about the economic consequences of a criminal conviction of SNC-Lavalin. He denied, however, that she was subjected to “inappropriate pressure” to shelve the prosecution.

Ms. Prince accompanied Ms. Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs in Jan. 14 when she was demoted and lost the plum post of justice minister in a cabinet shuffle. Normally, the chief of staff remains behind when their minister is shuffled – to provide continuity. Ms. Prince, however, was replaced as chief of staff to new Justice Minister and Montreal MP David Lametti by Rachel Doran. Ms. Doran had worked in the Prime Minister’s Office as a policy adviser and was part of the brain trust of previous Ontario Liberal governments that included Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford.

Mr. Butts, one of Mr. Trudeau’s closest friends and most trusted adviser, suddenly resigned Feb. 18, while denying allegations that officials in the Prime Minister’s Office applied political pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould to settle criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould is expected to testify to the justice committee at 8:45 a.m. on Tuesday. She retained former Supreme Court of Canada justice Thomas Cromwell to advise her on what she can say without violating solicitor-client privilege.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> How many employees does SNC actual have? I am sure they sub contract most everything to excavation, steel fabricators, electrical etc contractors as does ever engineering firm.



Newspapers quote 50k employees in 160 countries.  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin#cite_note-CBC_20120430-2 )

They started out doing just engineering, but also do project management and some other functions. For example, they bought the reactor division from AECL and have a CANDU division that markets and builds reactors across the world.  Here at home, they are involved in everything from building management (particularly around a lot of the office buildings here in Ottawa) and delivering the in service support for the RCN minor war vessels /auxiliaries (ie MCDVs, Orcas, and all the barges, tugs and other misc ships).

They are a pretty big multinational, and already took a big hit from being barred by the World Bank from a bunch of construction projects.  There are some allegations of bribes for a Montreal hospital project, so they are doing sketchy stuff here at home as well, but there are still whole sectors with absolutely nothing to do with that portion.

Realistically, if someone else wins the next iteration of MWAV, I'm sure they'll poach a bunch of the current PMs and other staff doing the work, but someone needs to poop or get off the pot here, as there are a bunch of potential contracts that would be affected, and may need some lead time to do some extra steps to set up a competition if the incumbent is suddenly banned . PSPC doesn't consider one or two compliant bids submitted to be a 'competitive process' so may need to do additional industry engagement, or tweak the RFP for extra cost analysis requirements for 'fairness' (insert air quotes here) .


----------



## YZT580 (25 Feb 2019)

by the information that the Globe keeps coming up with I would say that there are bigger leaks than the admiral in Ottawa who are far more damaging to the liberal cause.  Wonder why they aren't being pursued.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Feb 2019)

Should have stated the number of Cdns directly employed by SNC. Companies sub contracted by SNC don't count . These companies can get contracts from other entities.


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Should have stated the number of Cdns directly employed by SNC. Companies sub contracted by SNC don't count . These companies can get contracts from other entities.



Finally found it on their website;  "With 8,762 employees across Canada as of January 8, 2018—we know Canada.  " http://www.snclavalin.com/en/canada

Guessing most of those are on the higher end of the pay scale based on the type of work they do, as they sub out the lower paid stuff.  Still, if that's their employees running prime contracts, ends up touching a lot of other jobs, and transitions between primes never helps the bottom of the totem pole.

In some sectors they seem to be dominating the market, so no real guarantee if they folded the replacement wouldn't be a small Canadian contingent for a larger multinational based elsewhere.

I think most people are okay with the principle of a DPA, and application in this situation, but it's the greasy backdoor nature, the appearance of favouratism for a political donor and the constant lies that are the problem.


----------



## FJAG (25 Feb 2019)

The problem with the "too big to fail; too big to punish" principle is that it does not deter such players from acting improperly. Any fines etc just become a cost of doing doing business in a crooked way that effectively maximizes profits. Personally I think jailing and fining responsible executives is the way to go (what I would really like to see is their exorbitant salaries and bonuses being cut and redistributed to the smaller shareholders.)

 :2c:


----------



## Remius (25 Feb 2019)

The PM has waived attorney client privilege.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-waives-attorney-client-privilege-in-snc-lavalin-affair-1.4311440


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Feb 2019)

Perhaps requiring SNC to put up a significant “good conduct” bond for each big GoC contract they are awarded, held in trust until that particular contract is fulfilled? ???


----------



## Loachman (26 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The PM has waived attorney client privilege.
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-waives-attorney-client-privilege-in-snc-lavalin-affair-1.4311440



One wonders what changed his mind.

Another article, now rendered, at least in part, stale by Remius' previously-posted one:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/jody-wilson-raybould-has-trudeau-in-checkmate/

Jody Wilson-Raybould has Trudeau in checkmate

Andrew MacDougall: If the former AG adds credible colour to the story being told by anonymous sources this week, it will be a devastating day for Trudeau

by Andrew MacDougall

Feb 24, 2019 

"Is Jody Wilson-Raybould going to burn my government to the ground?"

It's the question Justin Trudeau must surely be asking as his former attorney general and justice minister prepares to "speak her truth" this week at the justice committee on the question of SNC-Lavalin.

If the dribs and drabs of information appearing on the front pages of The Globe and Mail over recent weeks turns out to be accurate foreshadowing, Trudeau might not be able to survive Wilson-Raybould's truth, let alone handle it.

_*As "did not direct" Wilson-Raybould has morphed into a "vigorous debate" on the question, and then to an admission of "pressure" from the Clerk of the Privy Council, but of the "lawful advocacy" kind, not the 'do as you're told' vintage*_, Team Trudeau has, to date, succeeded only in lighting itself on fire when it comes to SNC-Lavalin. Now it's time to see if Wilson-Raybould rocks up to committee with the final keg of kerosene.

If you're Trudeau, it's hard to envision an appearance in which Wilson-Raybould doesn't burn everything - Trudeau included - to the ground.  There has been some serious red-on-red action on the nation's front pages in the past few days, and only one side can survive.

Wilson-Raybould and the forces aligned with her have been putting out a narrative of undue pressure on the non-partisan attorney general over the criminal prosecution of SNC, a Liberal-loving Quebec behemoth. And they're making a compelling case.

Despite the independent director of public prosecutions saying 'no' to SNC on Sept. 4 of last year, Trudeau, his office, and the clerk - we now know, after initial denials - continued to revisit the issue with Wilson-Raybould and her office until Dec. 19, i.e. a few short weeks before she was shifted out of the attorney general role. It turns out 'no means no' meant nothing in Trudeaupia, at least when it came to SNC.

<snip>

_*The one meeting we still don't know much about is the one that might hold the key - and produce the most fireworks at Wilson-Raybould's testimony: the Dec. 18 meeting between the PMO's Gerry Butts and Katie Telford and Jessica Prince, Wilson-Raybould's Chief of Staff.*_ Wernick mentioned it briefly, but the PMO didn't offer up any information on the substance of their conversation when media outlets started asking questions about it. _*But if their chat wasn't about SNC, it stands to reason the PMO would have said so in order to shut down another unwanted avenue of inquiry.*_

<snip>

Then again, _*if Trudeau wanted Wilson-Raybould to speak he would have encouraged her to do so the second Robert Fife's first phone call went into the PMO on the matter. Trudeau has fought Wilson-Raybould every step of the way, likely for a reason.*_

<snip>

If Wilson-Raybould adds credible colour to the skeleton version of events outlined by the anonymous sources in the Globe it's going to be a brutal day for Trudeau.

And if Wilson-Raybould backs up her claims up with physical evidence (she is reputed to be a copious note-taker), or offers up a witness or two who can offer supportive contemporaneous accounts (hello, Jessica Prince!), it's going to be cataclysmic. Who knows, if the Dec. 18 meeting is indeed the one in which Butts told Wilson-Raybould to take matters up with the Clerk, it would mean Wilson-Raybould was prepared to be leaned on by Wernick over SNC in their call the following day. A penny for a tape of that conversation, anyone?

If it does prove to be the darkest day for Team Trudeau, the Liberals will be forced to contemplate what - and who - comes next. After all, if Gerry Butts, Katie Telford, and Michael Wernick are all telling an independent attorney general to go one way on an open criminal prosecution like SNC, it's hard to paint the picture that it wasn't with Trudeau's knowledge, or at Trudeau's request. Trudeau would find it very hard, if not impossible, to recover.

At best, Trudeau would be hanging by a very thin thread. If Butts had to walk over "pressure" on SNC, what does that mean for Telford should Wilson-Raybould credibly accuse her of the same? And what of Wernick, who told the committee he was sure Wilson-Raybould was feeling the pressure to "get it right" before implying to her that her caucus colleagues were still worried she had it wrong.

_*The level of nervousness in the PMO right now cannot be overstated*_, as evidenced by a series of leaks over the weekend designed to evacuate damaging disclosures (disputes over judicial appointments & the admission that Telford met with Justice on SNC). The ground is being prepared for everyone but Trudeau to have to go.

Even then, Trudeau's continued presence in the Prime Minister's Office would be a stretch. People might buy that Trudeau's aides and his deputy minister were a little overzealous in making SNC's case. _*But they won't buy that anyone other than Trudeau agreed to tuck SNC's preferred legislation into the Liberal budget, or forced Wilson-Raybould out of her post as attorney general, because only the Prime Minister has those powers.*_

<snip>

Could the cloud cover over sunny ways make for a viable alternative for Liberals, most of whom were elected because of Trudeau's coattails? Or would they shudder at the thought of serving for Canada's version of Frank Underwood?

It remains to be seen. At this point, Trudeau would like an ending as far away from House of Cards as possible. Right now, he'd much rather prefer a Newhart, one where he wakes up and none of this ever happened.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-michael-wernicks-alarmist-words-are-the-politics-of-fear/

Michael Wernick's alarmist words are the politics of fear

Wesley Wark

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published February 25, 2019

The politics of fear has just made an extraordinary appearance on Parliament Hill. The man who gave unexpected voice to it was none other than Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Ottawa's top bureaucrat. Clerks are not usually public Cassandras, and for good reason.

Mr. Wernick, before he launched into his riveting testimony last Thursday on the SNC-Lavalin affair, told the House of Commons justice committee that he had something else on his mind. That something else was the national security of Canada.

Mr. Wernick was speaking, he said, personally. From his bully pulpit, he told parliamentarians, "I'm deeply concerned about my country right now, its politics, and where it is headed." His statement left many shaking their heads, although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later signalled his full support.

His catalogue of fears for Canada was extensive and shocking. It included foreign interference in the upcoming election, "the rising tide of incitements to violence," the prospect of political assassination and killings in a election year, the besmirching of public reputations, the "vomitorium" of social-media discourse and a trend toward people losing faith in the governance of Canada.

<snip>


----------



## Loachman (26 Feb 2019)

Michelle Rempel in Parliament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J5CBbXQKAA


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (26 Feb 2019)

Thanks for posting, Loachman.

Two thoughts come to my mind after watching:

1) If her French is any good at all, we may have found our Canadian "Margaret Thatcher".  :nod:

2) Why don't excellent points made in the house outside of question period ever make it in the news so everyone can see actually good work by M.P.'s?


----------



## Loachman (26 Feb 2019)

My pleasure.

I do not believe that she speaks French.

It might be good for the Country if more of this was shown on the news. Most speeches like these are too long for normal news programmes, though. I prefer to get more detail on the subjects that interest me, and different viewpoints where applicable. One has to look for that, but it's usually available somewhere.

One interesting opinion about Trudeau's sudden reversal about allowing Jody Wilson-Raybould to speak, and I am waiting to see if anybody else picks up on this:

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/02/25/report-facing-massive-pressure-trudeau-partially-lifts-solicitor-client-privilege-but-theres-a-huge-exception/

REPORT: Facing Massive Pressure, Trudeau Partially Lifts Solicitor-Client Privilege, But There’s A Huge 'Exception'

Spencer Fernando February 25, 2019

The Trudeau government has issued an order in council, apparently 'waiving' solicitor-client privilege.

Yet, the Trudeau government has not given Jody Wilson-Raybould blanket permission to speak freely, and there are in fact some exceptions to what she is allowed to discus.

Here's the Order in Council (exception noted in bold):

"Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, for the purposes of the hearings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the examination by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner:

    (a) authorizes the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, to disclose to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner any confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada contained in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office; and

    (b) for the purposes of disclosure to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner by the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her, waives, to the extent they apply, solicitor-client privilege and any other relevant duty of confidentiality to the Government of Canada in regards to any information or communications in relation to the exercise of the authority of the Attorney General under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act that were directly discussed with the former Attorney General respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin while she held that office."

    *"However, in order to uphold the integrity of any criminal or civil proceedings, this authorization and waiver does not extend to any information or communications between the former Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning SNC-Lavalin."*

That’s a big exception.

For example, if a communication took place between a member of the Trudeau PMO, Jody Wilson-Raybould, and the Director of Public Prosecutions at the same time, that information would not be allowed to be discussed. If emails cc'd the Director of Public Prosecutions, that information would not be allowed to be discussed.

As a result, under the guise of 'waiving' privilege, there could be a ton of relevant information that is still blocked from being shared.

Also, why did it take the government two weeks to do this?

What happened in the meantime?

As many have noted, any part of the communications that relate to the current court cases against SNC-Lavalin would not be allowed to be discussed. Of course, that's a huge part of all of this.

But there's also another huge exception:

Note how it keeps referring to 'directly communicated' with the Former Attorney General.

*That means, conversations or pressure from Trudeau's PMO staff put onto Jody Wilson-Raybould's staff would not be able to be discussed.*

As you can see, all the headlines saying privilege was 'waived' are exactly what the Trudeau Liberals want. They're trying to look like they are allowing her to speak freely and get the truth out, but under the surface, the exceptions are huge.

Make no mistake, there still seems to be a cover-up going on here.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/02/25/justin-trudeau-is-following-instead-of-leading-on-snc-lavalin.html

Justin Trudeau is following instead of leading on SNC-Lavalin

By Susan Delacourt National Columnist

Mon., Feb. 25, 2019

Leadership strife is not at the root of the current troubles plaguing Justin Trudeau’s government.

Or is it? While Jody Wilson-Raybould’s split with the Prime Minister’s Office is not apparently linked to any leadership ambitions, it is abundantly clear now that the former justice minister is driving the bus in this whole saga over SNC-Lavalin.

So while Wilson-Raybould is not the leader or even a would-be leader of her party, she definitely has forced Liberals to follow her — if only to try to anticipate her next move.

On Monday, on the eve of her much-anticipated appearance at the Commons justice committee, Raybould demurred, issuing instead a long letter setting out the conditions under which she intended to speak.

Once again, without uttering a word about the specific grievances, Raybould is forcing everyone around her to react. Last week, she managed to get a hearing from cabinet and caucus - and this of course came after the resignation of Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts.

That’s pretty impressive clout for a rookie politician, new to cabinet and government a little over three years ago and a relative newcomer to the Liberal party.

<snip>

It is striking to see the ways in which Trudeau and his team have just left the slate blank in this whole tale, banking on the conviction that Canadians will give them the benefit of the doubt.

Each day in the Commons, this is basically what Trudeau says - that Canadians know his government is balancing concern for jobs and the law. “Trust us,” he says, while the government fans out, looking for experts and allies to attest to Trudeau’s integrity and hoping that the mess will go away.

Sometimes scandals do blow themselves out; sometimes ministers - or angry presidents - just go away, and governments carry on in their absence.

Nothing in this nearly three-week-old saga over Wilson-Raybould and SNC-Lavalin gives any indication of following that pattern. Trudeau and his government aren’t leading themselves out of the controversy - they’re following and reacting - and Wilson-Raybould is doing the leading.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-the-liberals-already-had-a-plan-b-for-snc-lavalin-so-why-did-they-even-bother-risking-a-scandal?video_autoplay=true

John Ivison: The Liberals already had a plan B for SNC Lavalin, so why did they even bother risking a scandal?

Why did Trudeau apply ‘relentless pressure’ to get Wilson-Raybould to change her mind? The only answer that makes any sense is: _*because he could*_

John Ivison	

February 25, 2019 7:49 PM EST

There is no calm for the Liberals as the storm of Jody Wilson-Raybould’s upcoming appearance at the justice committee rumbles towards them.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the House of Commons Monday he has waived solicitor-client privilege, freeing the former justice minister to talk about “relevant matters” as long as she does not touch on two court cases involving SNC Lavalin.

Meanwhile, Wilson-Raybould said in a letter to the committee chair that she is willing to testify at the “first opportunity,” but wants to make sure there is clarity on possible constraints on what she can say - which suggests it may not be in the next couple of days.

While we don’t know when Wilson-Raybould will appear at committee, we do know she wants 30 minutes for an opening statement. _*You don’t need half an hour to say that the whole SNC Lavalin saga, and recent allegations of political interference in the justice system, are just a big misunderstanding.*_

<snip>

On Monday afternoon the committee heard from a former Saskatchewan judge who has gone on record as saying the affair should be investigated by the RCMP. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has said a police investigation is necessary to restore public confidence in the administration of justice, calling the prospect of the attempted influence over a prosecution “not only immoral, (but) illegal.”

The adjudicator of whether Wernick, and perhaps even the prime minister himself, crossed any lines will be the ethics commissioner. If prosecutors agree with Turpel-Lafond, the affair may even end up before the courts and be settled by a judge.

But what perplexes me is why Wernick, the prime minister, and senior advisers Gerald Butts and Katie Telford even discussed a remediation agreement for SNC after Wilson-Raybould made clear she was not disposed to negotiate one, when a perfectly sound plan B was already being worked on.

As my colleague Gabriel Friedman revealed in the Post on Saturday, the department of Public Services and Procurement is finalizing changes to the Ineligibility and Suspension Policy under the Integrity regime. This word salad governs whether corporations convicted of crimes can bid on federal projects.

But the changes being contemplated by the government could reduce the ineligibility period from the automatically mandated 10 years to a debarment at the government’s discretion.

This policy change has been in the works for years — the public was invited to comment back in fall 2017 and the government says the update is being “studied and finalized.” A statement in the revised policy consultation said it is expected to take effect in “early 2019.”

One lawyer Friedman quoted said the debarment could conceivably be reduced to six months, a year or even no ineligibility at all. The proposed changes would widen the scope of offences that could lead to debarment, including human trafficking and environmental violations. The idea is that a one-size-fits-all punishment must be made more flexible if the range of offences is broadened.

SNC chief executive Neil Bruce has said the failure to secure a DPA would likely lead to three to four more years of court battles because the company considers itself not guilty.

But unless I’m missing something, a DPA would require an admission of culpability.

Under the new integrity regime, the company would also have to admit to wrongdoing before throwing itself on the mercy of the Registrar of Ineligibility and Suspension at Public Services. But, in that event, the company could claim mitigating circumstances, because the executives who perpetrated the alleged corruption have left and steps have been taken to ensure there is no repeat of the errant conduct.

So if the government already had an alternative to a deferred prosecution agreement that is expected to become policy in the next month or so, why did the prime minister and his most senior advisors risk flirting with immorality, if not illegality?

As Conservative leader Andrew Scheer asked Monday, if the decision to grant or refuse a deferred prosecution agreement was Wilson-Raybould’s alone - as the prime minister maintains - why did he apply “relentless pressure” to get her to change her mind?

The only answer that makes any sense is: because he could.


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (26 Feb 2019)

Trudeau is already seeding the clouds stating that that he is "pleased" that JWR will be able to "share her perspectives" at the committee.  The spin developing here is that, yes they met over the SNC case however they both have different perspectives on what was discussed and they have differing views on whether pressure was applied.  This is the same spin they put on the Creston groping allegation in that Trudeau stated in his pseudo-apology that "the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next" - basically the victim is entitled to her opinion of what happened, but its just an opinion.  So, once JWR "shares her perspectives" then the PMO will come out a say "see, it was all just a difference of perspectives".


----------



## Remius (26 Feb 2019)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> Trudeau is already seeding the clouds stating that that he is "pleased" that JWR will be able to "share her perspectives" at the committee.  The spin developing here is that, yes they met over the SNC case however they both have different perspectives on what was discussed and they have differing views on whether pressure was applied.  This is the same spin they put on the Creston groping allegation in that Trudeau stated in his pseudo-apology that "the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next" - basically the victim is entitled to her opinion of what happened, but its just an opinion.  So, once JWR "shares her perspectives" then the PMO will come out a say "see, it was all just a difference of perspectives".



The simple answer to that is :  2 ministers and a PMO principle secretary do not resign over a difference of perspective.


----------



## Kat Stevens (26 Feb 2019)

I think there could have been some softening her up before His Grace decided to allow her to somewhat speak. Good of The Party, team unity sort of thing.


----------



## Remius (26 Feb 2019)

Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
			
		

> I think there could have been some softening her up before His Grace decided to allow her to somewhat speak. Good of The Party, team unity sort of thing.



senate seat or ambassadorship...


----------



## Haggis (26 Feb 2019)

Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
			
		

> I think there could have been some softening her up before His Grace decided to allow her to somewhat speak. Good of The Party, team unity sort of thing.



I suspect you're right.  JWR will have received her vetted talking points and have been briefed on the consequences of straying from the script.  Whether she does so is the wild card in the deck.  That will depend on if the talking points are/are not factual.


----------



## Navy_Pete (26 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> senate seat or ambassadorship...



I don't think she seems like the type to care about either of those things. I think if they were trying, maybe some actual changes to the indigenous framework to get real change in there could be tempting, but she seems like she has the integrity to let them burn to the waterline instead of tossing herself under a bus for personal benefit.

Kind of weird to see in a politician, but haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise, and the reports about her 'not working well with others' seem to be more taking a firm position on things, fighting for what she believes in and not being pushed around to keep up political appearances and cronyism.


----------



## Loachman (26 Feb 2019)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> Trudeau is already seeding the clouds stating that that he is "pleased" that JWR will be able to "share her perspectives" at the committee.  The spin developing here is that, yes they met over the SNC case however they both have different perspectives on what was discussed and they have differing views on whether pressure was applied.  This is the same spin they put on the Creston groping allegation in that Trudeau stated in his pseudo-apology that "the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next" - basically the victim is entitled to her opinion of what happened, but its just an opinion.  So, once JWR "shares her perspectives" then the PMO will come out a say "see, it was all just a difference of perspectives".



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-1.5033639

Wilson-Raybould to testify at committee probing SNC-Lavalin affair Wednesday

Former attorney general has been granted broad waiver on cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege

Kathleen Harris CBC News Posted: Feb 26, 2019 10:59 AM ET

Jody Wilson-Raybould has agreed to testify at the Commons justice committee probing the SNC-Lavalin affair Wednesday afternoon, after obtaining a broad waiver that allows her to disclose details of her conversations with government officials about the prosecution of the Montreal-based global engineering and construction company.

The former justice minister and attorney general has been granted an extended, uninterrupted 30-minute period to deliver an opening statement to the committee.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said today he's "pleased" that Wilson-Raybould will be able to "share her perspectives" on the SNC-Lavalin affair.

"It's important that people get an opportunity to testify, or share their point of view, at committee," Trudeau told reporters as he headed into the weekly Liberal cabinet meeting.

"As we said, waiving privilege, waiving cabinet confidentiality is something that we had to take very seriously, but I'm pleased that _*Ms. Wilson-Raybould*_ is going to be able to share her perspectives."

(Hmmm... Not "Jody", now, like before? And I remain very suspicious about this sudden change of heart. - Loachman)

<snip>

Conservative justice critic and deputy leader Lisa Raitt will press Wilson-Raybould on what happened in various meetings and whether she engaged in any discussions that were, in her opinion, inappropriate. But she said the big unanswered question is what prompted Wilson-Raybould to resign.

"What was it either in what Mr. Lametti said, or in what the prime minister said, that caused her to realize she didn't have the confidence of the cabinet any longer and she had to remove herself from cabinet solidarity?" Raitt said. "Because that's what she did and it's a big deal."

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/25/wilson-raybould-wants-to-tell-the-full-story/

Wilson-Raybould wants to tell the full story

By Charlie Pinkerton. Published on Feb 25, 2019 5:55pm 

<snip>

At Monday’s meeting of the justice committee, Mary Condon, the interim dean of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, and Maxime St-Hilaire, a professor of law at the Université de Sherbrooke, agreed in their discussion with the committee that it is appropriate for the attorney general to discuss with his or her colleagues about potential decisions, but that their opinions should not influence the attorney general’s in specific cases.

On Thursday, Wernick told the justice committee that Wilson-Raybould was never inappropriately pressured by the prime minister or his staff. He also predicted that Wilson-Raybould would mention three separate occasions where she may have been concerned about pressure. This, Wernick described, was _*pressure to make the right decision*_ (But by whose definition of "right"? And why did the pressure continue after she announced her decision? Was her decision not the "right" one? - Loachman) rather than pressure from PMO staff.

<snip>

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/02/25/pmo-ordered-review-that-spawned-measures-which-could-help-snc-lavalin-memo/#.XHW9PsR7laS


PMO ordered review that spawned measures which could help SNC-Lavalin: memo

By The Canadian Press - Feb 25 2019

OTTAWA - A newly disclosed memo says the Prime Minister's Office ordered public consultations on federal anti-corruption measures - a review that led to two policy moves that could end up helping embattled SNC-Lavalin.

The internal briefing note, released under the Access to Information Act, says the PMO directed Public Service and Procurement Canada to consult the public in 2017 on both the overall integrity regime and the possibility of introducing formal alternatives to prosecuting financial crimes.

Early last year, following the consultation, the government passed legislation to create what is known as a remediation agreement - a means of having a corporation accused of wrongdoing make amends without facing the potentially devastating consequences of a criminal conviction.

As a result of a second thread of the consultation, the government is also proposing to soften the penalty scheme for companies involved in wrongdoing by changing the process for determining how long an offending firm should be barred from getting federal contracts.

SNC-Lavalin, the Montreal-based engineering and construction giant, faces corruption and fraud charges over allegations it resorted to bribery while pursuing business in Libya.

It has pushed unsuccessfully for a remediation agreement, and the Trudeau government has been plunged into controversy over accusations it improperly pressured the former attorney general to make an agreement happen.

http://angusreid.org/snc-lavalin/

Trudeau government’s handling of SNC-Lavalin affair opens seven-point lead for CPC over Liberals

February 26, 2019 - As political watchers across the country await with bated breath testimony from former Attorney General and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, the latest public opinion poll from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute shows the SNC-Lavalin affair taking a toll on the fortunes of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government.

While it remains unclear exactly how much - if any - pressure Trudeau and his staff put on Wilson-Raybould not to prosecute the Quebec-based engineering firm for fraud and corruption charges stemming from its business in Libya, _*most Canadians (66%) say they believe there is a deeper scandal in the Prime Minister’s Office*_. Moreover, a similar number (63%) say they believe SNC-Lavalin should be fully prosecuted under the criminal code, rather than allowed to negotiate a remediation agreement, as the PMO reportedly would have preferred.

These findings correspond with low marks for Trudeau himself. _*Fully six-in-ten Canadians (60%) say they have an unfavourable view of the Prime Minister, and a nearly identical 59 per cent say their opinion of him has worsened over the last month or so*_. While this is driven largely by the negative views of right-of-centre voters, it’s notable that three-in-ten (28%) who would vote for Trudeau’s Liberal Party in an election held tomorrow also say their view of the PM has worsened.

All of this creates a political landscape in which _*Trudeau’s Liberals would find themselves trailing Andrew Scheer’s Conservative Party of Canada by seven percentage points (38% to 31%)*_ in the event an election were held tomorrow.

(Details and graphs at the link above)


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2019)

Updated version of the last article that I posted:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-1.5033639

Wilson-Raybould says PMO restricting her ability to 'speak freely' at justice committee

Former attorney general has been granted broad waiver on cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege

Kathleen Harris CBC News Posted: Feb 26, 2019 10:59 AM ET | _*Last Updated: 8 hours ago*_

Jody Wilson-Raybould wrote to the chair of the justice committee Tuesday evening to say that while she will agree to give testimony before MPs on Wednesday, _*she will not be able to speak freely because of constraints that still exist around what she can and can't talk about*_. 

The former justice minister had obtained a broad waiver from the Prime Minister's Office that allows her to disclose details of her conversations with government officials about the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, a Montreal-based global engineering and construction company.

In an Order in Council (OIC) posted online Monday, the government said Wilson-Raybould - "and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin" - can report to the committee and to the federal ethics commissioner any cabinet confidences "in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office."

But in the letter to Anthony Housefather, Wilson-Raybould said those parameters _*will not allow her to "speak freely."*_

"The OIC addresses only my time as attorney general of Canada and therefore _*does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as minister of veterans affairs and in relation to my resignation from that post or my presentation to cabinet after I had resigned*_," she said in the letter. 

"I mention this simply to alert the committee to the fact that the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of attorney general."

<snip>

Conservative justice critic and deputy leader Lisa Raitt will press Wilson-Raybould on what happened in various meetings and whether she engaged in any discussions that were, in her opinion, inappropriate. But she said _*the big unanswered question is what prompted Wilson-Raybould to resign*_.

"What was it either in what Mr. Lametti said, or in what the prime minister said, that caused her to realize she didn't have the confidence of the cabinet any longer and she had to remove herself from cabinet solidarity?" Raitt said. "Because that's what she did and it's a big deal."

NDP MP Nathan Cullen said Wilson-Raybould's testimony will be "pivotal" and the committee probe must expand to call on testimony from officials in the PMO, including Trudeau's chief of staff Katie Telford and his former principal secretary Gerry Butts.

"It's a typical scandal. First they deny anything's here, then they admit the thing happened but the thing's not important. Then one by one the accusations become verified, and we need to hear from the principal actors," he said.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2019)

Oh what a tangled web we weave.... I’m sure you all know the rest of the quote.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Feb 2019)

Good journalism work by CBC. Lead with her headline, explain in the first 2 paragraphs with leading language on how she can speak on "broad" topics, only then get to the actual meat of her statement. Definitely not spinning it for the government view at all.... :facepalm:


----------



## Jarnhamar (27 Feb 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Good journalism work by CBC. Lead with her headline, explain in the first 2 paragraphs with leading language on how she can speak on "broad" topics, only then get to the actual meat of her statement. Definitely not spinning it for the government view at all.... :facepalm:



The CBC definitely doesn't have $675-million reasons to be pro-Liberal


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Feb 2019)

Well JWR is most definatly not pulling any punches. 

Can she even stay in the party now ?  Would she be welcome ?


----------



## brihard (27 Feb 2019)

Oh man. Anyone who’s at all interested in this, find Mercedes Stephenson’s Twitter page; she’s posting JWR’s testimony in committee in real time. Suffice to say (as I remember I’m employed federally), a bus just got hijacked and is being driven back and forth over someone right now. I’m gobsmacked by her testimony.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Feb 2019)

Where do we go from here ?


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> Where do we go from here ?


Demanding the PMs resignation. Demanding the Minister of Finance resign as well.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Feb 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Demanding the PMs resignation. Demanding the Minister of Finance resign as well.



Like that'll ever happen  :


----------



## Kat Stevens (27 Feb 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Demanding the PMs resignation. Demanding the Minister of Finance resign as well.



Their egos would never allow it.


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Feb 2019)

Then pressure them. Prosecute them if possible.


----------



## Loachman (27 Feb 2019)

I just watched her presentation, but cannot stick around for the questions. I'm hoping that the whole thing will be posted online somewhere, later.

Two words:

"Powerful".

"Damning".

I cannot see police investigations not being initiated.

I cannot see this government surviving.

It no longer has any shred of legitimacy.

I do not even know what should happen at this point.

http://www.gg.ca/en/role/responsibilities/constitutional-duties

As The Queen’s representative in Canada, the governor general has a number of responsibilities, one of the most important being to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place that has the confidence of Parliament.  The governor general’s other constitutional duties include:

 -   swearing into office the prime minister, Cabinet ministers and the chief justice of Canada;
 -   summoning, proroguing and _*dissolving Parliament*_;
 -   delivering the Speech from the Throne;
 -   granting Royal Assent to acts of Parliament;
 -   appointing members of the Privy Council, lieutenant governors and certain judges, on the advice of the prime minister; and
 -   signing into effect official documents, such as orders-in-council.

Her Excellency may may be brushing up on her specific terms of reference.


----------



## PuckChaser (27 Feb 2019)

This testimony makes us sound like a third world dictatorship instead of a G7 nation.


----------



## cavalryman (27 Feb 2019)

When they've lost the folks who habitually comment on CBC news items, that can't be a good sign for PMJT and his cabinet...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-testifies-justice-committee-1.5035219

rly:


----------



## Kirkhill (27 Feb 2019)

Does anyone else think that for a disinterested civil servant the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, seemed to be pretty party-political partisan in his involvement.

Is it his purview to worry about the Government of the Day getting re-elected?


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Feb 2019)

When Lisa Raitt raised the Norman trial, my sense from JWR is that but for privileges she might slice and dice the PMO for that one as well.
 Got to wonder how JT will survive the next few months as leader of the Liberal party.


----------



## BurnDoctor (27 Feb 2019)

Sharpen the pitchforks. Dip the torches in pitch.

Oh...and pop popcorn. This is getting good.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Feb 2019)

BurnDoctor said:
			
		

> Sharpen the pitchforks. Dip the torches in pitch.
> 
> Oh...and pop popcorn. This is getting good.



From one BurnDoctor to another Burn Doctor ;D


----------



## Haggis (27 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> A summation of some views from Quebec.



Going back to this post from February 14, if the PM spins this right in his home province (where he will be speaking this evening) JWR may have just handed the Liberals Québec on a platter in October.


----------



## BurnDoctor (27 Feb 2019)

You’re right, unfortunately, Haggis. Ugh.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Feb 2019)

I wonder how many serious NDP insiders are tearing their hair out now that Burnaby voters have removed the pretext to replace Singh, at the time when the Liberals are well on their way to being at their weakest since Adscam.  Opportunity missed.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 Feb 2019)

As expected Scheer just call for the PM to resign and for the RCMP to open an investigation.


----------



## MilEME09 (27 Feb 2019)

Well. Scheer just publically said the PM needs to resign


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Feb 2019)

Plus the Liberals on the Justice Committee defeated a motion to lift the restriction on JWR to speak to events after her resignation, etc, etc.



UPDATE: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will address reporters tonight at 8pm ET in Montreal, where he is scheduled to meet Liberal volunteers from Outremont's recent byelection. 


7 minutes ago
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is calling on Justin Trudeau to resign as prime minister, and for the RCMP to open an immediate investigation if not already underway. 


2 minutes ago
The text of Scheer's statement:
“Justin Trudeau simply cannot continue to govern this great nation now that Canadians know what he has done. That is why I am calling on Justin Trudeau to resign. Further, the RCMP must immediately open an investigation – if it has not already done so – into the numerous examples of obstruction of justice the former Attorney General detailed in her testimony.

“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.

“I listened carefully to the testimony of the former Attorney General, and like Canadians, I was sickened and appalled by her story of inappropriate, and frankly illegal pressure brought to bear on her by the highest officials of Justin Trudeau’s government. All to let a Liberal-connected corporation off the hook on corruption charges.

“Before Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, Canadians knew Justin Trudeau had engineered an unwanted, sustained, and co-ordinated attempt to get Ms. Wilson-Raybould to change her mind and stop the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin. Today, thanks to Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, we now know just how intense those efforts were: ten meetings and ten phone calls involving eleven senior government officials relentlessly targeting Ms. Wilson-Raybould over a four month period – with the sole objective of bullying her into bending the law to benefit a well-connected corporation.

“The details are as shocking as they are corrupt: multiple veiled threats to her job if she didn’t bow to their demands. Urgings to consider the consequences on election results and shareholder value above judicial due process. And reminders from Justin Trudeau to his Attorney General about his own electoral prospects should she allow SNC-Lavalin’s trial to proceed.

“As Ms. Wilson-Raybould has so clearly articulated, the people Canadians entrusted to protect the integrity of our very nation were instead only protecting themselves and their friends.

“Mr. Trudeau can no longer, in good standing and with a clear conscience, lead this great nation.

“Canada should be a country where we are all equal under the law. Where nobody – regardless of wealth, status, or political connections – is above the law. I believe we can be that country again.”


----------



## YZT580 (27 Feb 2019)

I don't think it is possible for JWR to continue in caucus.  It is too bad that her convictions won't allow her to join the PC's but I suspect that we will see a new independent member in the next few days.  But Kudos to her.  It has been a long time since Ottawa has hosted a truly honest politician.


----------



## Haggis (27 Feb 2019)

I also suspect that the VAdm Norman prosecution will be the next subject JWR is called upon to comment about.  After all, it happened on her watch as AG and, therefore, she can speak publicly now that the PM's waiver OIC is out there.   It would be fascinating to hear what influence she was subjected to as the PM had situated the estimate regarding VAdm Norman's culpability back in February 2018.


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Feb 2019)

One of the best bits from JWR's testimony:



> Katie Telford, PM chief of staff, offered to line up friendly media if Wilson-Raybould was worried about how abandoning prosecution of SNC might look. "If Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write OpEds saying that what she is doing is proper.”


----------



## Mick (27 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I also suspect that the VAdm Norman prosecution will be the next subject JWR is called upon to comment about.  After all, it happened on her watch as AG and, therefore, she can speak publicly now that the PM's waiver OIC is out there.   It would be fascinating to hear what influence she was subjected to as the PM had situated the estimate regarding VAdm Norman's culpability back in February 2018.



The Order-in-Council is specific in that it only waives privilege and cabinet confidence in reference to the SNC-Lavalin issue, and only covers her time as AG, and nothing after the cabinet shuffle.

In the same vain, this waiver will not allow her to comment on the Norman prosecution.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Feb 2019)

In case you weren't able to watch/listen to the testimony, here's the opening comments, as shared by the _National Post_.

Here's also a copy available via scribd.com.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Feb 2019)

I'm not in agreement that there are grounds to investigate a justice system participant. Generally that involves threats of violence or harm or causing fear preventing a person from performing their duty. Nor is it criminal interference, as there was no ongoing investigation. 
I do agree with JWR that Parliament ought to consider whether an AG be independent from Cabinet, which in the case of Canada means separating the duties of the justice minister from the AG.


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Feb 2019)

There are political models. The UK has a structure that insulates the AG much more than we have. There is still a Lord Chancellor, but the AG is not a full cabinet member. As a result, the political considerations are not front and centre. There are probably other models as well, but what we have would have been broken under a less resolute AG. Just my 0.02.

One more thing: the PCO (Wernick) bringing up Iacabucci ( a former SCC judge) as a threat that he is no “violet” as the lead counsel for SNC probably was the final straw. I think it quite just that she hired her own former SCC judge as her own counsel.


----------



## Jed (27 Feb 2019)

So does anyone have a link to a Liberal or preferably PM reply to today's questioning of JWR or the oppositions call for the PM resignation?


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Feb 2019)

Wow. Must say I'm a fan.

You can read her opening statement in full here;

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jody-wilson-raybould-opening-statements-1.5035785


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> One more thing: the PCO (Wernick) bringing up Iacabucci ( a former SCC judge) as a threat that he is no “violet” as the lead counsel for SNC probably was the final straw ...


Missed that tidbit -- thanks for sharing that.

Just a little reminder of another task he's up to - this from October 2018 from the law firm Iacobucci works for ...


> We are pleased to announce that in connection with the Government of Canada’s proposed TransMountain pipeline expansion, the Honourable Frank Iacobucci has been appointed to provide advice on the design of the consultation process with Indigenous groups and to oversee that process.
> 
> The Honourable Frank Iacobucci has released the following statement in connection with his appointment announced today by the Government of Canada:
> 
> “I am honoured to be asked to take on this important role and am excited and eager to begin. How this process is managed is of deep concern to all the parties involved and is profoundly important for the country. I am committed to working diligently to ensure that the Court’s judgment is applied properly and that Indigenous peoples are meaningfully consulted.”


I stand to be corrected if he's no longer doing that job.

That said, whatever would THAT mean for the Honourable learned counsel in this case?


----------



## Cloud Cover (27 Feb 2019)

He's probably pissed that Wernick tried that stunt. How can the country be confident that the PMO/PCO hasn't attempted to influence other prosecutions undertaken by the Federal DoJ? We already know that lawyers from the PMO staff met with the Prosecutors in the Norman trial to plan strategy to "engineer the outcome". Did JWR know that? It seems unlikely. Her body language, tone and inflexion turned to ice today when Norman was mentioned, and same when Huawei was mentioned.


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2019)

Somewhat off-topic, but related, from earlier in the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWMjh2phAuY

Best comment: "Was he just standing up for jobs for prostitutes? That's how ridiculous it sounded.﻿"


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Feb 2019)

I'm expecting  either a PM Trudeau teary-eyed apology about how he messed up and he so so sorry and he learned from his mistakes and he will do better. With more tears.

Or

A simple "she experienced it differently, we dont need an ethics investigation case closed we're moving on".


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm expecting  either a PM Trudeau teary-eyed apology about how he messed up and he so so sorry and he learned from his mistakes and he will do better. With more tears.
> 
> Or
> 
> A simple "she experienced it differently, we dont need an ethics investigation case closed we're moving on".



He is, apparently, going with the second of the two COAs that you mentioned. For now, anyway.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

In addition to the PM, the PMO and the Liberals my sense is there are at least two other "institutions" worrying about their reputations.

1.  The press.  - The notion that the PMO can wall-paper the media with op-ed writers and experts is not going down well with the club.  It tends to give credence to all those who believe that the news is something less than it professes.

2.  The Civil Service - Michael Wernick, head of the Civil Service, man responsible for picking, promoting, hiring, firing and assigning civil servants, has clearly demonstrated a party-political preference.  On what grounds does he make his hiring decisions and his assignments?  Is he the only Liberal in the Civil Service?  Are there fellow-travellers that were in place when the Tory government was working with them?

Right or wrong there are questions.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (28 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> In addition to the PM, the PMO and the Liberals my sense is there are at least two other "institutions" worrying about their reputations.
> 
> 1.  The press.  - The notion that the PMO can wall-paper the media with op-ed writers and experts is not going down well with the club.  It tends to give credence to all those who believe that the news is something less than it professes.
> 
> ...



I noted that the CBC reaction/coverage of JWR was...muted...today. The Cohen testimony in the US seemed to be getting more play.

If the Liberals do not survive this (and I don't think they will), Wernick is done the second another party takes power.

I generally believe civil servants are reasonably non-partisan on the job. That said, i figure there is a metric boatload of soul searching going on in Ottawa and elsewhere about choices made during the last election. And direction to be carried out since the last election. 

After disbelief, comes anger. A whole bunch of civil servants could, starting tomorrow, starting dumping data and telling tales of about other ethical breaches they have witnessed or been party to in the past 3 years out of anger at having been lied to or in an effort to get in front of things.

Everything comes out, eventually...


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ... If the Liberals do not survive this (and I don't think they will), Wernick is done the second another party takes power ...





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> .... Is he the only Liberal in the Civil Service?  Are there fellow-travellers that were in place when the Tory government was working with them? ...


Don't forget, though, that he was first appointed into the DM ranks by this guy ...





... and kept there when he could have EASILY been moved/punted by any PM thinking he wasn't up to the job.

However, if you want to read tea leaves, there's always this @ LinkedIn  - screen capture attached if link doesn't work for you.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ...The press.  - The notion that the PMO can wall-paper the media with op-ed writers and experts is not going down well with the club.  It tends to give credence to all those who believe that the news is something less than it professes ...


Well, if you believe that, then how much doubt did you express when a media outlet, one of those "bought" by Team Red, came out with allegations of political meddling in a legal case based on unnamed sources?  A lot of people were happy to forget the Globe's alleged track record of being in the tank for the Liberals, until they published something bashing said Liberals - where were the critiques of those who believe the news is something less than it professes? 

Also, do you think this is any different from any other government in power at any level, be they Team Red, Team Blue or Team Orange?

All that said ...


			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ... Everything comes out, eventually...





			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ... Right or wrong there are questions.


 :nod:


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2019)

https://torontosun.com/news/national/wilson-raybould-i-was-pushed-got-veiled-threats-on-snc-lavalin/wcm/b468a082-526b-41c6-bc86-92734c44ed44

Wilson-Raybould: I was pushed, got veiled threats on SNC-Lavalin


Wilson-Raybould: I was pushed, got veiled threats on SNC-Lavalin

Canadian Press Published: February 27, 2019

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is reconsidering Jody Wilson-Raybould's future in the Liberal party after his former attorney general accused him, his senior staff and the country's top civil servant of putting her under relentless pressure to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and refused to say whether she still believes in his leadership.

"I completely disagree with the former attorney general's characterization of events," Trudeau said in Montreal, shortly after Wilson-Raybould concluded four hours of explosive testimony before the House of Commons justice committee. "I strongly maintain, as I have from the beginning, that I and my staff always acted appropriately and professionally."

He said he will review all of Wilson-Raybould's testimony before deciding whether she can remain in the Liberal caucus or seek re-election this fall as a Liberal candidate.

Wilson-Raybould reiterated her intention to remain part of the Liberal team as she exited the committee room, even though she refused during questioning to say whether she still had confidence in the leader of that team.

"I'm not sure how that question is relevant," she said when asked by a Liberal colleague if she still has confidence in the prime minister.

Trudeau 'definitely not in agreement' after Wilson-Raybould details pressure in SNC-Lavalin affair: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=784&v=2gMDW_MYEbc

The political consequences of Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony | At Issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN5vfYCaQEc


https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-the-unbearable-lightness-of-justin-trudeau


FUREY: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau
Anthony Furey Published: February 27, 2019

How on earth would he spin it? Forget spin. How on earth can he survive this? After watching Jody Wilson-Raybould's calm, composed, lengthy and detailed damning testimony against Justin Trudeau, it was hard to imagine the PM would have anything to say in response besides staring at the cameras like a deer in the headlights.

Yet there he was, not long after the justice committee hearing had wrapped up, waltzing into a media availability in Quebec to celebrate the new Liberal MP elected during the Wednesday byelections.

He was all smiles, and even the occasional smirk, as he swatted aside everything, not a care in the world.

<snip>

But Trudeau didn't seem fazed when he took to the podium Wednesday evening. He admitted he hadn't seen all of her testimony (then why comment on it?!) but had no problem labelling J.W.R. a liar.

"I completely disagree with the former attorney general's characterization of events," Trudeau said, with a smile.

Of course, he'd set us up for this denial. On Tuesday he said it was important for J.W.R. to testify so she could "share her perspective." Not facts. Not, as she put, her truth. But her perspective. And now he says her perspective was the wrong one.

Zero apology, zero regret - instead, he proudly urged Canadians to have faith in the ethics commissioner, who has opened an investigation into this affair. And, yes, that would be the same ethics commissioner who simply doles out fines to the tune of $200 if someone has been found to break a law.

Trudeau says he welcomes that process. (Will he say the same about the RCMP investigation that is no doubt soon to commence?)

Before stepping away from the mic, he got in one of his now regularly occurring digs about the Conservatives "dividing" people, as if that shield would work this time around.

But based on his composure, the look on his face, how he was cockier than usual - it seems Justin Trudeau really does think this will all soon go away.

That's the part, his attitude, that makes this whole saga so hard to bear.


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Feb 2019)

Question: Could the current GoC be kicked to the curb if a no confidence motion were to be introduced?


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2019)

That would require enough Liberals to vote in support of the motion for it to pass.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Feb 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Question: Could the current GoC be kicked to the curb if a no confidence motion were to be introduced?



Unlikely, the motion would be voted down by the Liberal majority. 

I believe that if Her Excellency the Governor General assessed that the Government had lost the confidence of the people, independent of a lower house vote, there could be action taken, but that is unlikely at this point.


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Feb 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> That would require enough Liberals to vote in support of the motion for it to pass.


Even the motion being defeated would be more gas on the fire for the next election. Individual MPs who voted to stay in power would have that thrown in their face on the campaign trail. If such a motion was proposed, I think there would be a lot of sick Liberal MPs who couldnt make the vote that day...


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Feb 2019)

How disgustingly corrupt of our government and prime minister. 

Good thing the Liberals pre-emptively bought the media.


----------



## Furniture (28 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> How disgustingly corrupt of our government and prime minister.
> 
> Good thing the Liberals pre-emptively bought the media.



To be fair, that media isn't giving them much of a pass on this, I'm actually a bit surprised to see it.

That said, most Canadian's seem more interested in the circus south of the border so maybe this will all go away.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Good thing the Liberals pre-emptively bought the media.


That would include the "bought" media that brought us the first story starting this thread based on unnamed sources?  Or shouldn't we not have believed that, either?  


			
				Furniture said:
			
		

> ... That said, most Canadian's seem more interested in the circus south of the border so maybe this will all go away.


I don't know about that -- a lot of people I know who keep at least some track of politics have been _*riveted*_ by this one, even those interested by whazzup south of the border.  YMMV


----------



## Journeyman (28 Feb 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> …. so maybe this will all go away.


In both US and Canadian politics, there will be some for whom -- equally mindlessly -- the ruling leaders can do either no wrong or nothing right.  

An increasing number of other people are apparently finding behaviours increasingly abhorrent, but will move on with the next "SQUIRREL!"  Personally, I'm finding this _current_  SNC Lavalin 'crisis' to be more of the same from both that company, Irvings, etc., and whichever party tends to be governing (although I feel that the Liberals tend to be worse at lining their pockets).

As such, while it's already stayed in the news longer than I expected, I can't help but believe (being more cynical than milnews.ca   ), that the sheeple will eventually wander off, and it will indeed go away.  It will be brought up periodically, but the reactions will become increasingly blasé.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Feb 2019)

Tony, my rebuttal.



> Don't forget, though, that he was first appointed into the DM ranks by this guy ...(Harper)



Was the best person for the job at the time, and unaware of partisanship.



> Quote from: Chris Pook on Yesterday at 23:44:09
> ...The press.  - The notion that the PMO can wall-paper the media with op-ed writers and experts is not going down well with the club.  It tends to give credence to all those who believe that the news is something less than it professes ...
> 
> Well, if you believe that, then how much doubt did you express when a media outlet, one of those "bought" by Team Red, came out with allegations of political meddling in a legal case based on unnamed sources?  A lot of people were happy to forget the Globe's alleged track record of being in the tank for the Liberals, until they published something bashing said Liberals - where were the critiques of those who believe the news is something less than it professes?



It's about the money. Getting a national scoop, to add to the G & M's reputation as a news outlet, to increase circulation, get its scoop quoted by everyone.

What happens now. I hope the GG, as posted previously, dissolves this Parliament, the Conservatives win a majority, govern responsibly, and JWR is appointed first indigenous GG shortly after. Even if JWR is re-elected as a Liberal, she should be appointed GG.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2019)

I suppose JT could resign and another senior Liberal could take over as PM if the mess continues to spiral.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Tony, my rebuttal.
> 
> Was the best person for the job at the time, and unaware of partisanship.
> 
> ...




Ah , probably the best outcome for the Canadian people. Too damn good to actually transpire though.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That would include the "bought" media that brought us the first story starting this thread based on unnamed sources?  Or shouldn't we not have believed that, either?  I don't know about that -- a lot of people I know who keep at least some track of politics have been _*riveted*_ by this one, even those interested by whazzup south of the border.  YMMV



My  facebook feed was full of people I know watching and commenting.  Even here at work where politics is rarely discussed it was brought up. 

More people are catching on to this story as it barrels on fire towards a cliff...

Agreed on the media.  They broke the story and they are all over this.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2019)

BTW all (including mods), thanks for keeping the discussion all detailed & civil here.


			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I suppose JT could resign and another senior Liberal could take over as PM if the mess continues to spiral.


Any specific "senior Liberals" in mind? 


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Was the best person for the job at the time, and unaware of partisanship.


Could very well be the case -- but he stayed in the DM position for the entire tenure of Team Blue and ended up as the 2 i/c to the person then holding the Clerk of PCO's position, all under the same PM.  May 2006 (start of DM'ship) thru November 2015 (end of Team Blue's latest tenure) seems a long time to hang onto someone one suspects of alleged partisanship/disloyalty/less-than-full compliance. 


			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> It's about the money. Getting a national scoop, to add to the G & M's reputation as a news outlet, to increase circulation, get its scoop quoted by everyone.


Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed & agreed (especially about the making money bits).  Still doesn't speak to why some people were skeptical about "bought" MSM sharing information without also being skeptical about this information coming from the same, allegedly tainted source.



			
				Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What happens now. I hope the GG, as posted previously, dissolves this Parliament, the Conservatives win a majority, govern responsibly, and JWR is appointed first indigenous GG shortly after. Even if JWR is re-elected as a Liberal, she should be appointed GG.


My  :2c: for what it's worth, in order ...

GG dissolving Parliament:  Not likely to happen[/color], given GG's _tend to_ give priority to the elected bodies' preferences, no matter who's in the wheelhouse.
Conservative majority in October:  _Based my admittedly less-than-robust radar read right this second_, I think it's too early to see if they'll make a majority or even win, but this is a *clear* kick in the 'nads for Team Red - and a lot can happen either way between now and October.
Governing responsibly:  As one would expect any gov't to do. (I know - dare to dream ...)
JWR as GG (1):  *Fabulous idea!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!* - first I've heard that option suggested
JWR as GG (2):  Would depend on who's PM on whether that would happen (hard for me to predict so early and in the middle of this big storm - see yellow bit above) - doubt if this one would if he's PM again.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> My  facebook feed was full of people I know watching and commenting.


I'm intrigued by how many people who are FAR from fans of Team Red, especially those frustrated with what they consider "cabinet by quota", suggesting this Liberal cabinet minister should be PM.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Feb 2019)

Not many things can smell what's in the wind better than a bloodhound. The Press is one of those things.They can tell their benefactor is in some serious doodoo here, so they're choice is to either start sucking up to their next potential grocery bringer, or go into full on spin mode.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What happens now. I hope the GG, as posted previously, dissolves this Parliament, the Conservatives win a majority, govern responsibly, and JWR is appointed first indigenous GG shortly after. Even if JWR is re-elected as a Liberal, she should be appointed GG.



On what grounds would the GG dissolve parliament?

A no confidence vote has not occurred.

Elections have not been called.

There is no constitutional crisis. 

While the GG has the absolute power to do so, that office needs a reason beyond allegations.  If the RCMP get called in it is doubtful anything will be determined until well after the next election anyways.  As damning as JWR's testimony is there are others that still need to be heard.  I'm convinced that something did indeed happen as she described it but we don't just dissolve governments on the word of one person.  Due process is required. 

The more likely scenario is that the PM resigns or is pushed out (that is what I think is more likely) by caucus.  The LPC picks a leader who has the confidence of the house to form government (they have enough of a majority to do this) and runs in the next election.

JWR will never be appointed to anything by the current government.  sucks but they put their line in the sand.  Would a CPC government appoint her? Maybe.

She would make a good choice yes but I doubt that can happen in this climate.  

If JT gets pushed out, maybe JWR should make a run for the leadership (unfortunately the liberal machine might be too much against her though).


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Don't forget, though, that he was first appointed into the DM ranks by this guy ...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Power is usually a means to an end.   The end is self-aggrandizement, personal wealth or, worst of all in my belief, a desire to change the world to conform to your beliefs.

Butts, my opinion, is one of the most dangerous type: driven by conviction - and thus, along with Telford, not bothered by the niceties.

Warnick is may be only a common grifter willing to go along to get along.  

I suspect that the higher the pay grade, and the closer to the centre of power one gets, the more one is likely to run into both Wernick and Butts clones.  And that, to me, is a problem, if there is an entrenched belief in a Natural Governing Party.

 :cheers:  Cheers, mate!


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2019)

A bit of analysis by someone who's been around these circles a bit ...


> We now know why the prime minister, the finance minister, their most senior aides and the country’s top bureaucrat put so much pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould last fall to intervene in a criminal court case on behalf of a Montreal company.
> 
> It was the votes — votes the Liberals in Quebec City and the Liberals in Ottawa thought they were sure to lose if that company, SNC-Lavalin, decamped from its Montreal headquarters for foreign shores, a move it was threatening to make to avoid punishment, should it be found guilty of the corporate fraud it is alleged to have committed in Libya.
> 
> ...


More @ link
Meanwhile, attached find another copy of JWR's opening statement (from her web site) if you haven't already read it - LOTS of detail w/dates, names, what was said (see what taking notes does?).


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Unlikely, the motion would be voted down by the Liberal majority.
> 
> I believe that if Her Excellency the Governor General assessed that the Government had lost the confidence of the people, independent of a lower house vote, there could be action taken, but that is unlikely at this point.



I believe the Aussies tried that a while back.  It prompted a lovely little dust up (kind of like the King-Byng affair locally) and a ditty:  "Get your dungarees off, Gough. Get your dungarees off."


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

milnews:

"Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed & agreed (especially about the making money bits).  Still doesn't speak to why some people were skeptical about "bought" MSM sharing information without also being skeptical about this information coming from the same, allegedly tainted source."

For the same reasons that some days I can convince myself that purple is blue and other days I see purple as red.  And it becomes harder when purple is mauve or violet.   ;D


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I believe the Aussies tried that a while back.  It prompted a lovely little dust up (kind of like the King-Byng affair locally) and a ditty:  "Get your dungarees off, Gough. Get your dungarees off."



Both those cases involved a constitutional crisis.  Although the King Byng issue had a scandal involving bribes it was the constitutional crisis that was the problem.  king Byng thing was about the GG letting another party try to govern in a minority situation.  The aussies' crisis of 1975 was the outright dismissal of a PM based on confidence issue (an issue that could never happen here due to how our senate differs).

 Neither is a good precedent for what is happening now. 

What is happening now is quite unprecedented.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Feb 2019)

Listening online to local radio from Wpg and Kelowna, Liberal MP's talking points are they believe the PM, he has done nothing wrong, protecting jobs.

What's on your local radio?


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Both those cases involved a constitutional crisis.  Although the King Byng issue had a scandal involving bribes it was the constitutional crisis that was the problem.  king Byng thing was about the GG letting another party try to govern in a minority situation.  The aussies' crisis of 1975 was the outright dismissal of a PM based on confidence issue (an issue that could never happen here due to how our senate differs).
> 
> Neither is a good precedent for what is happening now.
> 
> What is happening now is quite unprecedented.



Strangely, (I'm sure you will appreciate this), I agree.

Options for the opposition look to be to keep this in the news for the next 8 months with confidence votes and committees, calls for investigations, tying in pipelines and the Norman case and take advantage of new leaks as they come out.

Options for the government?  Rag the puck until the election and trust to the fates?  Fire the entire headshed and hope to god you can rebuild a reputation?

Next week or 8 months from now a bunch of Liberals are going to be looking for a new source of income.


----------



## Jed (28 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Strangely, (I'm sure you will appreciate this), I agree.
> 
> Options for the opposition look to be to keep this in the news for the next 8 months with confidence votes and committees, calls for investigations, tying in pipelines and the Norman case and take advantage of new leaks as they come out.
> 
> ...



So the Canadian people are in for piss poor governance until the end of 2019 as more and more biased and unethical behavior emanates from Ottawa? Great, how uplifting.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

Jed:

Just consider it like managing a pregnancy.  9 months and a surprise.  

One further point:

About Jody Wilson-Raybould and her testimony.  

I was struck by how calm and composed she was.  I sensed that this was a person completely at ease with her situation and I believe that that is in large part that as an "outsider" in Ottawa she draws her strength not from the locals but from her roots - her family, her clan and her beliefs.  I suspect that regardless of the outcome she knows she can always go home and live with herself.

The nearest parallel that came to my mind was that of Thomas More.  

Although I expect Ms. Wilson-Raybould to be less ill-used than More.


----------



## Kat Stevens (28 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jed:
> 
> Just consider it like managing a pregnancy.  9 months and a surprise.
> 
> ...



Or, and this is just the meanderings of a sleep deprived mind, The cynics among us could see it as her having a game plan toward future employment, and has just Bangalore Torpedoed a couple of very big obstacles in her centre of axis.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
			
		

> Or, and this is just the meanderings of a sleep deprived mind, The cynics among us could see it as her having a game plan toward future employment, and has just Bangalore Torpedoed a couple of very big obstacles in her centre of axis.



That too.  But she appeared way too calm, at least to my eyes, to be game-playing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2019)

Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
			
		

> Or, and this is just the meanderings of a sleep deprived mind ...


Who still knows enough to take detailed notes while being deprived of said sleep 


			
				Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
			
		

> ... The cynics among us could see it as her having a game plan toward future employment, and has just Bangalore Torpedoed a couple of very big obstacles in her centre of axis.


So young to be so cynical ... 

That said, I, too, wonder about her long game. op:


----------



## garb811 (28 Feb 2019)

First, I'd like to thank everyone for the level of discourse being maintained; this is certainly the standard we would like to continue to see in the political threads.

Second, please remember that not everyone is viewing the thread with the same colour scheme you are drafting your response with. While the use of coloured text certainly allows you to emphasize certain aspects of your post, the colours you choose may actually have the opposite effect on one of the other versions of the site by making certain coloured portions of your post essentially unreadable.

*Army.ca Staff*


----------



## JesseWZ (28 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I was struck by how calm and composed she was.  I sensed that this was a person completely at ease with her situation and I believe that that is in large part that as an "outsider" in Ottawa she draws her strength not from the locals but from her roots - her family, her clan and her beliefs.  I suspect that regardless of the outcome she knows she can always go home and live with herself.



It was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I believe a good source of that calm and composed nature was she could fall back on her notes which were made contemporaneously. 

When I'm in court getting cross examined, I have always been thankful to "past self" for taking good clear notes regarding my interactions. It's amazing how quickly memory can fail you in pressured situations.

There is a lesson there for all of us - particularly folks in a leadership position. I am often asked by people on what to do in situations when something smells bad but doesn't necessarily invite police involvement. My answer is always the same, start by taking good clear notes about everything you can remember in the conversation / interaction.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Feb 2019)

Except if you work in the high echelons of NDHQ.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Except if you work in the high echelons of NDHQ.



Field Message Pads are so ugly and they spoil the way the tunic falls.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Feb 2019)

Warren Kinsella: RCMP were watching, now investigating, sending preservation letters, obtaining search warrants. https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1622821&playlistId=1.4316317&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Warren Kinsella: RCMP were watching, now investigating, sending preservation letters, obtaining search warrants. https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1622821&playlistId=1.4316317&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1


Tick, tick, tick ...


----------



## Haggis (28 Feb 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> When I'm in court getting cross examined, I have always been thankful to "past self" for taking good clear notes regarding my interactions. It's amazing how quickly memory can fail you in pressured situations.



Good notes have saved my bacon a few times in court.



			
				JesseWZ said:
			
		

> There is a lesson there for all of us - particularly folks in a leadership position. I am often asked by people on what to do in situations when something smells bad but doesn't necessarily invite police involvement. My answer is always the same, start by taking good clear notes about everything you can remember in the conversation / interaction.



I usually take copious point form notes during meetings leaving space below each to fill in the details later either during round table discussions or Q&As.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

Meanwhile, in Montreal



> PM Trudeau reflecting on Wilson-Raybould's presence in Liberal caucus



The only related article in the on-line edition of the Montreal Gazette.

https://montrealgazette.com/

That and Christie Blatchford's opinion piece buried low on the opinion page.  The editorial is about Cannabis.

La Presse gives the case a similar light treatment

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2019)

Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
			
		

> Or, and this is just the meanderings of a sleep deprived mind, The cynics among us could see it as her having a game plan toward future employment, and has just Bangalore Torpedoed a couple of very big obstacles in her centre of axis.



I think that as a trained lawyer (crown prosecutor at that) that she knew exactly what she was doing and how to do it.   She had a game plan.  But I think it had more to do with her showing the world that she was not going to have her integrity questioned.  Her performance will be talked about for a long time.  Very impressive. 

Employability will not be an issue for her.  I'm willing to bet she has dozens of offers from other sectors right now. 

Read her bio.  Her father clashed with JT's father.  Her father told PET that her daughter wanted to be PM one day.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Feb 2019)

Watch for announcements of various legislation and initiatives as they desperately try to change the channel.


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Watch for announcements of various legislation and initiatives as they desperately try to change the channel.



If they follow their Ontario provincial counterparts they will promise all sorts of stuff.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Feb 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> That would include the "bought" media that brought us the first story starting this thread based on unnamed sources?  Or shouldn't we not have believed that, either?



Yes it would. 

Does it mean the media is going to be silenced? No. 
Completely ignore getting first crack at a story that may possibly topple the liberal government?  Probably not.
But pull a lot of punches or burry stories? I think so.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Feb 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Watch for announcements of various legislation and initiatives as they desperately try to change the channel.



Well, announcing Canada is going to the Moon, then Mars, with the Americans, investing in development of Canadarm-3, certainly didn't work today: every single question he fielded after the announcement at the Canadian Space Agency was about the Wilson-Raybould testimony.  :facepalm:


----------



## Haggis (28 Feb 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Well, announcing Canada is going to the Moon, then Mars, with the Americans, investing in development of Canadarm-3, certainly didn't work today: every single question he fielded after the announcement at the Canadian Space Agency was about the Wilson-Raybould testimony.  :facepalm:


Along with the Minister of Public Safety's announcement yesterday of a bill to allow "expedited pardons" for cannabis convictions.


----------



## JesseWZ (28 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yes it would.
> 
> Does it mean the media is going to be silenced? No.
> Completely ignore getting first crack at a story that may possibly topple the liberal government?  Probably not.
> But pull a lot of punches or burry stories? I think so.



I don't necessarily agree. Now that this issue is in the open, there will be a veritable feeding fest as media dials up every source they have in the government looking for additional tidbits, other allegations of corruption, anything they can even remotely connect to this issue (think VAdm Norman, etc). 

I think the Honourable Member for Vancouver-Granville is a crack in the dam of silence which may embolden others to come forward and share their stories.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Feb 2019)

Personally, I wish the Liberal caucus members who are not part of the government (they are the majority, BTW, as only members who hold an appointment as either ministers, or in the larger sense as secretaries of state, are actually part of the government - not any backbenchers) would get the courage to actually do their job as our watchers of the government and actually oust him. The GG then can either dissolve Parliament or ask someone else (Wilson-Raybould?) to see if he/she get the confidence of the Commons to put together a cabinet.

But that's just me, a conservative constitutional monarchist.
 :dunno:


----------



## Remius (28 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Yes it would.
> 
> Does it mean the media is going to be silenced? No.
> Completely ignore getting first crack at a story that may possibly topple the liberal government?  Probably not.
> But pull a lot of punches or burry stories? I think so.



Arguably that was happening before. So status quo?


----------



## brihard (28 Feb 2019)

With just eight months til the election, I’m quite sure the Governor General will leave the question of confidence in the elected majority government in the hands of the voters where, in all but the most extreme cases, it should reside.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Feb 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I don't necessarily agree. Now that this issue is in the open, there will be a veritable feeding fest as media dials up every source they have in the government looking for additional tidbits, other allegations of corruption, anything they can even remotely connect to this issue (think VAdm Norman, etc).



One starts to wonder if “the other issue” about which the then-Attorney General wished to speak to the PM was related to the good Vice-Admiral?  

One of the sad story lines in the “accountability of actions and investigations” is the PM’s assertion that the Justice Committee has the investigation well in hand, yet it is not truly representative of the people as the partisan majority of the Committee continues to resist a scope of investigation that Joe and Jane Canada reasonably should expect to be pursued.

Regards
G2G


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Does it mean the media is going to be silenced? No.
> Completely ignore getting first crack at a story that may possibly topple the liberal government?  Probably not.
> But pull a lot of punches or burry stories? I think so.


More nuanced answer - thanks for clarifying.


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Personally, I wish the Liberal caucus members who are not part of the government (they are the majority, BTW, as only members who hold an appointment as either ministers, or in the larger sense as secretaries of state, are actually part of the government - not any backbenchers) would get the courage to actually do their job as our watchers of the government and actually oust him ...


Until the rules change, all MP's are "part" of government.  Never say never, but political memories can be long when future bosses consider such political defiers/courageous stand takers.


			
				Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ... The GG then can either dissolve Parliament or ask someone else (Wilson-Raybould?) to see if he/she get the confidence of the Commons to put together a cabinet ...


Not quite that "someone else", according to this ...


> ... Should the Government be defeated on a confidence question, under this convention the Prime Minister would normally be required to submit his or her resignation to the Governor General. The Governor General may either dissolve Parliament with a view to a general election or, much more rarely, *invite the leader of another party in the House* to form a new government ...





			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> One of the sad story lines in the “accountability of actions and investigations” is the PM’s assertion that the Justice Committee has the investigation well in hand, yet it is not truly representative of the people as the partisan majority of the Committee continues to resist a scope of investigation that Joe and Jane Canada reasonably should expect to be pursued.


Under FPTP, the committees represent the "results" of the election based on # of seats, not the popular vote.  So, time for prop rep voting?  :stirpot:


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

> Until the rules change, all MP's are "part" of government.  Never say never, but political memories can be long when future bosses consider such political defiers/courageous stand takers.



Actually, I don't believe that all MPs ARE part of government.

Government comprises the Governor in Council, in other words the PM, the cabinet and the Privy Council (for whom Michael Wernick is the clerk (scribe, note-taker, secretary, personal assistant).

The Civil Service works for the government.

The government, largely sits in Parliament, but Parliament is not the government.  Parliament, and its members, exist to restrain, constrain, contain and otherwise govern the government.   And that goes for MPs that are elected to support the government as well.


----------



## Haggis (28 Feb 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I think the Honourable Member for Vancouver-Granville is a crack in the dam of silence which may embolden others to come forward and share their stories.



One fellow BC Liberal MP has come forward to insinuate that her father was "pulling the strings" and that her perception of political interference was simply a lack of experience and that she couldn't handle the stress.  He has since apologized for his misogynistic comments relating to her father.  I expect more MPs will come forth to attack her in the coming days.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> One fellow BC Liberal MP has come forward to insinuate that her father was "pulling the strings" and that her perception of political interference was simply a lack of experience and that she couldn't handle the stress.  He has since apologized for his misogynistic comments relating to her father.  I expect more MPs will come forth to attack her in the coming days.



Even though the PM apologized for his tardiness in addressing the first round of _ad hominem_ attacks on Wilson-Raybould, I too expect more rounds of such attacks, but of course in no way directed by the PM, anyone in PMO, the PCO, etc.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Feb 2019)

And in a startling development, according to this story in the National Post reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, much of the Quebec punditry has turned on Trudeau:

How Quebec is reacting to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s bombshell: ‘Nobody is a friend of Trudeau’
Wrote one columnist, if Quebecers continue supporting Trudeau, in spite of this attack on judicial independence, 'we are imbeciles'

Marie-Danielle Smith
February 28, 2019
1:41 PM EST

OTTAWA — After weeks of sympathizing with his plight to save SNC-Lavalin from the potential penalties of criminal prosecution, Quebec’s pundit classes have now concluded that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau crossed the line in his dealings with former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

In the hours after Wilson-Raybould’s scathing testimony at a Commons justice committee Wednesday evening, commentary emanating from the home province of the embattled engineering firm, which is being prosecuted for corruption, took on a harsher tone. Chantal Hébert, a Montreal-based columnist for the Toronto Star and L’actualité, put it this way on a Radio-Canada morning radio show Thursday: After a review of the newspapers, she said in French, “nobody is a friend of Trudeau this morning.”

Quebecers could think that Wilson-Raybould had made an error in judgment by deciding not to pursue a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin, in light of thousands of jobs that could be put at risk if a conviction resulted in a ban on bidding for public contracts. But they could at the same time agree that it was deeply inappropriate for the prime minister to spend four months trying to twist her arm after a decision had been made, Hébert argued.

The committee testimony was front page news for the likes of Le Devoir and the Journal de Montreal. But at midday you had to scroll down to find stories about Wilson-Raybould on the websites of most Quebec-based media outlets.

The top story on La Presse was about home retailers Lowe’s and Rona. The Journal focused on a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Television station TVA Nouvelles featured a story about immigration, public broadcaster Radio-Canada one about Australian F-18 fighter jets and the English-language Montreal Gazette an interview with a mountain climber about icy Montreal sidewalks.

On TVA, Mario Dumont, a TV personality and former leader of provincial party Action démocratique du Québec, took note Thursday morning of how Wilson-Raybould’s testimony was dominating English-language media, and how some national columnists were questioning Trudeau’s moral authority to govern. “Excuse me, I will re-ask the same question as last week, and the week before,” he said in French. “Our friends at the Globe and Mail and the National Post — would they be as severe and intransigent if we were talking about a firm whose headquarters was in Toronto?”

Still, Dumont declared there is “no doubt” now that there was mismanagement from the top. And a review of French-language media made it clear that the scandal was resonating with some Quebec commentators in a new way. After all, Trudeau explicitly used Quebec’s provincial election and his own federal seat in Montreal as reasons why Wilson-Raybould should change her mind, according to her testimony.

SNC-Lavalin had not been a topic in debates around the Quebec provincial election last fall. The company had “no link” to the election, argued Pierre Jury for Le Droit, a Gatineau newspaper. But, he hypothesized, mentioning the election could’ve been Trudeau’s way to raise the prospect of SNC-Lavalin moving its headquarters from Quebec while still trying to “walk on eggshells” and avoid spelling out the federal political consequences in earnest.

For La Presse, Paul Journet wrote that questions should still be asked about why Wilson-Raybould closed the door so quickly to a remediation agreement, since perhaps a minister from British Columbia wouldn’t understand how important SNC-Lavalin was to Quebec’s public interest. But the Trudeau government’s “clumsy and dubious manoeuvres” now risked making a solution for the company politically untenable.

At Le Devoir, Michel David acknowledged it was normal for the prime minister to note SNC-Lavalin’s importance to the Quebec economy. But it was now very difficult to believe that Wilson-Raybould lost her position as attorney general for any other reason than that she refused to bend to the prime minister’s will. It would be likewise hard to imagine the new justice minister, David Lametti, reversing her decision after Wilson-Raybould so clearly raised concerns about whether the independence of the office would stay intact after her departure.

The Journal’s Richard Martineau, with a headline “The real Justin Trudeau,” dug in the deepest. For all his feminism and openness and humanism and generosity and altruism, etcetera, how could Trudeau fling the justice system out the window so easily? And was it because of empathy for workers that Trudeau wanted to save SNC-Lavalin, Martineau asked? “No. Because Justin needs votes in Quebec to win his next election,” he wrote, and Quebecers will protect their own even if they build prisons for dictators and pay for their sons’ prostitutes to get contracts.

“Imagine if Stephen Harper acted that way. The Red Cross would have to send doctors to Radio-Canada to treat journalist victims of apoplexy,” the columnist wrote. If Quebecers continue supporting Trudeau now, in spite of this attack on the independence of the justice system, “we are imbeciles.”

_- mod edit to add link -_


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Actually, I don't believe that all MPs ARE part of government.


Maybe not part of the *executive* branch of government, but not _*not*_ a part, either according to these guys ...


> ... Three branches work together to govern Canada: the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch (also called the Government) is the decision-making branch, made up of the Monarch (represented by the Governor General), the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet. *The legislative branch is the law-making branch, made up of the appointed Senate and the elected House of Commons.* The judicial branch is a series of independent courts that interpret the laws passed by the other two branches ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Feb 2019)

Actually, Brihard, there is no such thing in Canada as a "elected majority government".

First in the history of Canada we have elected exactly ZERO "governments". Our government is a monarchy run hereditarily by the Queen. She appoints a Prime Minister who then selects his/her cabinet. There are no obligation whatsoever that the member of the Cabinet come from  Parliament. The only requirement is that the P.M. have and retain the confidence of the elected members of Parliament.

The job of the elected members of Parliament is to actually act as the People's representative to control government - particularly spending by the government - through legislation. Since only the P.M. and the Ministers (and I guess ministers of state and Parliamentary secretaries) form the Government, and none of the backbenchers are part of the government regardless of their political affiliation, there is no such thing as voters deciding on confidence in the P.M. and his government. The matter belongs exclusively to the elected members of Parliament, even today.

This is the very basis of Responsible Government, Westminster style, we Canadians have been gifted with as a result of Lord Durham's work. Unfortunately, the "Government" has fought back to get back apparently unlimited power, by eviscerating the powers of Parliament over the decades, particularly since the 1960's and with major gutting since the 1990's. The result is that the PMO's now believes itself unrestricted in all it does and runs roughshod over the other Ministers and Parliament as if they were mere mouthpieces.

That, BTW, is how we got where we are in this very matter. And don't believe for one moment that  threatening demotion of Ministers or of sending ordinary M.P.s of one's own political party out of valuable Committees of Parliament is NOT in the PMO's arsenal to keep everyone in line.

And Milnews, I believe that the site from the Parliament of Canada you cite, is wrong: Political parties are private organizations that have no actual existence under our constitution. The Queen, and her representative, can select anyone at all in Canada, elected or not, to form a government (BTW, it happened twice to Christie Clark in B.-C.). She is not limited in any way in who she choses to form a government. It is by tradition only that she usually (as indicated before) choses the elected leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament - simply because there is a presumption that such leader starts by having the confidence of those elected members of his/her party. It doesn't have to last: see all the changes of leaders in London, Canberra or Auckland originating in caucus.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe not part of the *executive* branch of government, but not _*not*_ a part, either according to these guys ...





> GOVERNMENT:
> Executive (the Monarch/Governor General, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet)
> Federal departments (such as National Defence, Justice and Finance)



What I said.....


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Members of Parliament.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Feb 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> What I said.....
> 
> 
> Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Members of Parliament.


Then you're both right & they have to clean up their wording (or clarify the capital G thing)


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> .... The Queen, and her representative, can select anyone at all in Canada, elected or not, to form a government (BTW, it happened twice to Christie Clark in B.-C.). She is not limited in any way in who she choses to form a government. It is by tradition only that she usually (as indicated before) choses the elected leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament - simply because there is a presumption that such leader starts by having the confidence of those elected members of his/her party. It doesn't have to last: see all the changes of leaders in London, Canberra or Auckland originating in caucus.



Interesting thought experiment.

Parliament originally formed around people with armies resolving disputes. The prospect of those armies tended to keep the Monarchs in line.  Then it was discovered that gold was mightier than the sword and the Monarch was constrained by Parliament controlling the supply of gold.  Armies were dispensed with. And then we moved on to people organizing virtual armies of voters, or parties.

What happens though, if the virtual armies fail to appear?  What happens if no Party can secure a large enough following in the House?  Or worse the House itself falls into disrepute and nobody turns out to support anybody?

If the turnout drops below 50% at the next election could the Governor General be justified in appointing her own cabinet to the Privy Council? 40%? 30%? 5 %?

I note that in the US Congress job approval is somewhere around 10 to 20%.  At what point can the be ignored?







In Canada Parliament does a bit better at something like 40%, comparable to that of the Brits and the Aussies.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Feb 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Then you're both right & they have to clean up their wording (or clarify the capital G thing)


Well hang on now. As Admiral Scheer put it last night, "... It seems clear that Justin Trudeau doesn't seem to know where the Liberal Party ends and the government begins".   Butter or margerine, they may taste the same...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Feb 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Well hang on now. As Admiral Scheer put it last night, "... It seems clear that Justin Trudeau doesn't seem to know where the Liberal Party ends and the government begins".   Butter or margerine, they may taste the same...



Who is Admiral Scheer?


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2019)

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/28/news/bill-morneau-denies-wrongdoing-snc-lavalin

Bill Morneau denies wrongdoing on SNC-Lavalin

By Fatima Syed & Alastair Sharp in News, Politics | February 28th 2019

Finance Minister Bill Morneau says his staff acted "absolutely appropriately" on the SNC-Lavalin file, denying any wrongdoing in presenting the economic case for helping the engineering company avoid a criminal trial.

Morneau defended the behaviour of officials including his chief of staff, Ben Chin, to reporters in Toronto Thursday, less than 24 hours after the former justice minister and attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, gave damning testimony in front of the House of Commons justice committee accusing him of applying "extraordinary pressure" on her.

Asked repeatedly whether he had directed his chief of staff Ben Chin to contact @Puglaas' staff with message that a deferral for SNC-Lavalin had to happen, @Bill_Morneau finally answered: "No, I did not." 

In the short press conference, Morneau responded unequivocally that neither he, nor his staff, did anything wrong.

"I want to be clear. I never raised this issue with Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould," said Morneau, who also acknowledged that, as per her testimony, the former attorney general approached him about the issue on Sept. 19.

"She approached me (in the House of Commons) to tell me that my staff was approaching her staff, which I think is entirely appropriate," he said, adding that he could not recall more details about that interaction in the House.

In her testimony, Wilson-Raybould said she spoke with Morneau in the Commons, where “he again stressed the need to save jobs, and I told him that engagements from his office to mine on SNC had to stop - that they were inappropriate.”

Wilson-Raybould detailed two other meetings with Morneau's chief of staff Ben Chin in her testimony, noting that he had urged her office to "find a solution" to help save jobs in the context of the Quebec Oct. 1 general election.

"My staff, appropriately, would make her staff aware of the economic consequences of decisions, about the importance of thinking about jobs," Morneau said Thursday.

<snip>

Morneau's comments came hours after Trudeau told reporters, again, that _*Wilson-Raybould's continued membership in the Liberal caucus was under consideration.
*_ (She has stated that "I was elected by the constituents of Vancouver-Granville to represent them as a Liberal Member of Parliament" and has no intention of leaving her party, and does not expect to be expelled; expulsion would, in my view, weaken Trudeau even further - Loachman)

Speaking to reporters after an event at the Canadian Space Agency in Quebec, Trudeau said he has "taken knowledge of her testimony and there are still reflections to have on next steps."

<snip>

When asked about this Thursday, Trudeau deflected by saying, again, that "had [former treasury board president] Scott Brison not stepped down, Jody Wilson-Raybould would still be minister of justice and attorney general of Canada." He also repeated that both him and his office were appropriate in all their dealings with Wilson-Raybould and her office, and that he disagreed with her version of events.

The following article was originally linked by Milnews. I have included a little more from the article:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5007305/analysis-trudeau-brand-jody-wilson-raybould-testimony/

February 28, 2019 6:00 am

ANALYSIS: The Trudeau brand takes a hit after Jody Wilson-Raybould testimony

By David Akin

<snip>

Well, here’s some news for Bouchard and everyone else in the Trudeau PMO: you know what’s worse than SNC-Lavalin moving out of Montreal six months before an election? The testimony Wilson-Raybould gave Wednesday afternoon at a House of Commons committee. It was bad. Real bad.

Wilson-Raybould’s careful, measured testimony - based on copious notes she took after each and every one of the 10 instances last fall in which she or her staff were bullied to intervene in SNC-Lavalin’s court case - was one jaw-dropping revelation after another of misbehaviour in the most senior offices in the land.

Steve Saideman, a political science professor at Carleton University who keeps a keen eye on Canadian politics, turned to Twitter to neatly sum up the afternoon’s revelations: “Liberals ditched an Indigenous woman who was first to have such a visible and important post to pander to a corrupt company to avoid losing votes in Quebec, right?”

That’s pretty much it, professor. A prime minister who built a nice little international brand as a feminist, who preached reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous peoples as his top priority fired a female, Indigenous justice minister because she wouldn’t help the team win some votes in Quebec.

Wilson-Raybould described herself as a descendant of Kwakwaka’wakw matriarchs who are “truth-tellers,” and after a long afternoon of fulfilling that destiny, Trudeau called reporters for a quick early evening press conference in Montreal to essentially say there was no truth to what she had told. _*Oddly, he conceded that he had not watched all of her testimony but was nonetheless able to “strongly disagree” with the testimony he did not see.*_ _*He suggested she had got it all wrong without offering a single specific instance of a fact Wilson-Raybould presented that was false.*_ Well, if she was so wrong, Mr. Prime Minister, why is she no longer the country’s justice minister?

And how would they know Wilson-Raybould was wrong? _*While Wilson-Raybould was at pains Monday to explain her prodigious note-taking, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick - one of Wilson-Raybould’s tormenters - proudly boasted to the same justice committee last week that he took no notes during the meeting with Wilson-Raybould in mid-December*_, during which he allegedly delivered what Wilson-Raybould described as “veiled threats” that she should come around and bail out SNC-Lavalin.

This is where I have to take issue with Wilson-Raybould’s use of the phrase “veiled threats.” _*They were not veiled at all. They were naked threats, vicious threats, threats that could not be missed. And, most damning of all, they were threats on which a vengeful prime minister made good on Jan. 7*_, telling Wilson-Raybould in person that she was no longer his justice minister and could instead serve Canada as veterans affairs minister. (She would resign, shortly afterwards, from cabinet completely, though she remains, as of Wednesday night, a member of the Liberal caucus.)

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-moral-catastrophe-of-justin-trudeau/

The moral catastrophe of Justin Trudeau

Paul Wells: What Jody Wilson-Raybould described today is a sickeningly smug protection racket and it should make us all question what we’re willing to tolerate

by Paul Wells Feb 27, 2019

The dangerous files are never the obscure ones. Scandals don’t happen in the weird little corners of government, in amateur sport or in crop science. _*They happen on the issues a prime minister cares most about, because everyone gets the message that the rules matter less than the result.*_

It’s a constant in politics. In 2016 I took one look at Bill Morneau’s first budget and wrote this: “The sponsorship scandal of the late Chrétien years was possible because it was obvious to every scoundrel with Liberal friends that spending on national unity would not receive close scrutiny from a government that was desperate to be seen doing something on the file. A government that considers the scale of its spending to be proof of its virtue is an easy mark for hucksters and worse.”

It wasn’t a perfect prediction. I kind of expected the hucksters and worse to be outside government. Unless the Trudeau Liberals can produce persuasive evidence that Jody Wilson-Raybould is an utter fabulist (and frankly, I now expect several to try), her testimony before the Commons Justice Committee establishes pretty clearly that the hucksters and worse were running the show. Led by the grinning legatee who taints the Prime Ministers’ office.

There will now be a period of stark partisanship. We’re in an election year. Loyal Liberals will tell themselves, and then everyone else, that the price of looking clearly at Justin Trudeau’s bully club (so many men; wonder how Katie Telford felt about that while she was signing off on every element of it) is ceding the field to Andrew Scheer. Who, they will tell themselves and then the country, is an actual Nazi.

I mean, after all, that’s pretty close to what they told one another, and then Jody Wilson-Raybould, last fall, isn’t it? There was an election in Quebec in the first week of October. And Ben Chin, a former journalist who did whatever Christy Clark needed done in B.C. before moving east to do whatever Bill Morneau and the PMO needed doing, used that thin reed of an excuse to try to sway Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff, Jessica Prince. “If they don’t get a [deferred prosecution agreement], they will leave Montreal, and it’s the Quebec election right now, so we can’t have that happen,” Wilson-Raybould told the committee, paraphrasing Chin’s conversation with Prince.

_*I’ve never met a Liberal yet who doesn’t reliably confuse his electoral skin with the national interest.*_ So much of what Trudeau and his minions have done in the last year stems from that instinct. _*Take the ludicrous half-billion-dollar bailout for people in my line of work, never explained, sprung out of nowhere in Morneau’s fall economic update - or as I now like to think of it, between Trudeau advisor Mathieu Bouchard’s meeting (yet another one) with Prince and Michael Wernick’s chat with Wilson-Raybould.*_ (This is a serious statement from a journalist; I do not see any inclination from any journalist, so far, to defend Trudeau or his party, or cover anything up - Loachman) You can get a lot of op-eds written with that kind of dough. Take the cool billion the Canada Infrastructure Bank coughed up to pay for a politically popular and impeccably well-connected transit project around Montreal. That money appeared, from a brand-new bank that has not funded a single other project and did not then yet have a CEO [Update, Thursday: Wrong! It had had a CEO since last May – pw], on the day before Philippe Couillard launched the Quebec election campaign. It is now impossible to believe on faith that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ben Chin, Mathieu Bouchard, Katie Telford and Justin Trudeau.

But anyway, back to partisanship. Liberals and their many friends across the land will insist that all this behaviour must have no real-world repercussions because the other side cannot be permitted to gain the upper hand. And similarly, a lot of battle-hardened opponents of the Liberals will call for the jails to be opened up to welcome fresh Liberal meat. Fortunately, there is indeed an election coming up, and I’m content to let voters decide the partisan affiliation of the next government. I offer them no counsel.

But we get to draw our own conclusions as citizens. What the former attorney general described tonight is a _*sickeningly smug protection racket whose participants must have been astonished when she refused to play along*_. If a company can rewrite the Criminal Code to get out of a trial whose start date was set before the legislation was drafted, _*all because a doomed Quebec government has its appointment with the voter*_, then which excesses are not permitted, under the same justification? If a Clerk of the Privy Council can claim with a straight face that ten calls and meetings with the attorney general, during which massive job loss, an angry PM and a lost election are threatened, don’t constitute interference, then what on earth would interference look like? Tonight I talked with two former public servants whose records rival Michael Wernick’s. Both were flat astonished that he seems not to have pushed back against this deeply disturbing, and plainly widespread, behaviour.

There’ll be time to contemplate mechanisms in the days ahead. I don’t think the ethics commissioner has a broad enough mandate to investigate matters like that Canada Infrastructure Bank investment and other tendrils of this affair. But in the end, the moral collapse of Justin Trudeau’s government teaches each of us a lesson, if we will only listen: There had damned well better be a limit to what we’re willing to do or say, whatever the cause we claim to serve. The rules need to be rules - not for the people we despise, but for ourselves. For myself. For you. Or else we have no souls.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/the-sex-side-of-the-snc-scandal

The sex side of the SNC scandal

Brian Lilley Published: February 27, 2019 

The SNC-Lavalin affair has had allegations of bribery, political intrigue and a major cover-up, all that was missing was sex.

Now we have the sex component!

A report by Montreal’s La Presse newspaper says that SNC-Lavalin allegedly paid for a sex-filled trip across Canada for the son of the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

“Naked dancers, porn movies and many, many, many prostitutes,” the story states.

Saadi Gaddafi was supposedly working on development issues, specifically making Libya a “new Hong Kong” in North Africa, instead it was all about sex.

Security firm Garda World was hired by SNC to escort Gaddafi across the country as he picked up escorts in city after city.

The total bill was more than $30,000 and one Vancouver escort agency charged as much as $10,000 for a single session.

Bills from other escort agencies ranged from $600 to $7,500 per session.

Previous stories about the relationship between SNC-Lavalin and the Gaddafi family noted the lavish trips the company had paid for and the placement of Saadi Gaddafi’s wife was on the company payroll during the Libyan civil war.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-wilson-rayboulds-convincing-testimony-may-cost-trudeau-his-job?video_autoplay=true

John Ivison: Wilson-Raybould's convincing testimony may cost Trudeau his job

If you were watching Wilson-Raybould’s appearance Wednesday afternoon, that cracking sound you heard was Liberal Party unity breaking up

February 27, 2019 10:39 PM EST

_*Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony was so much worse than the opposition could have hoped, or the government might have feared.*_ Justin Trudeau has been hoist by his own petard, and it may cost him his job.

Trudeau appointed as justice minister someone who said she is a “truth-teller,” an Indigenous person who said she has witnessed the consequences of the rule of law not being respected.

He appointed her and then he tried to make her complicit in running roughshod over that law.

If she is to be believed - and _*her testimony was convincing enough that it is likely she had public opinion in her pocket very early on*_ - when she refused to play along he applied, in her words, “inappropriate political pressure.” When she still failed to bend to his will, he removed her from her position as justice minister.

_*If he thought she would respond to the “veiled threats” levelled against her, he clearly misread this woman.*_

If you were watching Wilson-Raybould’s appearance Wednesday afternoon, that cracking sound you heard was Liberal Party unity breaking up. The former attorney general remains a member of the Liberal caucus, and a candidate at the next election. But it is a malignant fidelity. Her testimony has done more harm to her party’s chances of re-election than anything achieved by a hapless opposition. It seems hard to see how she can continue to sit as a Liberal member, far less run again.

<snip>

If she is to be believed - and it has to be noted she made for an extremely credible witness - _*even the dimmest of dunces would have been able to conclude this was a woman who was resolute and unyielding once her mind was made up*_.

<snip>

But if the former justice minister’s testimony is to be believed, the sustained nature of the campaign to make her change her mind - with the hint that there would be consequences if she didn’t - may have crossed the line from information to interference.

An independent arbiter - be it the ethics commissioner, or even a judge - needs to make that deliberation.

But voters will reach their own conclusions long before any judicial proceedings take place. The verdict is likely to be harsh.


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2019)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/speaker-grants-opposition-request-for-emergency-debate-on-snc-lavalin-scandal-1.4316805

Speaker grants opposition request for emergency debate on SNC-Lavalin scandal

Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer

Published Thursday, February 28, 2019 12:41PM EST

OTTAWA - MPs will hold an emergency debate this evening in the aftermath of former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony before the House Justice Committee yesterday.

Wilson-Raybould said she faced high-level "veiled threats" and political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen raised the request for the “urgent” debate that she said is required as the result of what was heard yesterday.

"Mr. Speaker there were hours of very credible testimony given yesterday that begs this chamber discuss this issue. We are certainly at a crisis," Bergen said.

<snip>

"This has caused a crisis of confidence in the prime minister, and in his cabinet, certainly in the clerk of the privy council, in the minister of finance, and in the current attorney general," Bergen said in making her case for the emergency debate.

Bergen was backed up by NDP MP Charlie Angus.

<snip>

_*Trudeau was not in question period on Thursday*_, (Is the seriousness sinking in? It did not appear to be last night - Loachman) and it's rare for party leaders to attend question period on a Friday. That means _*the next time Trudeau could face a question directly on this scandal in the House of Commons may not be until March 18*_, when the House resumes, unless he decides to return to Ottawa for this emergency debate this evening.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/butts-wants-to-testify-after-wilson-raybould-alleged-consistent-pressure-on-snc-lavalin-case-1.4316581

Butts wants to testify after Wilson-Raybould alleged 'consistent' pressure on SNC-Lavalin case

Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer

Published Thursday, February 28, 2019 10:35AM EST

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's former top adviser Gerald Butts has written to the House of Commons Justice Committee requesting to testify on the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

In his letter to the chair of the committee, Butts says that he watched Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony - in which she alleged that she faced high-level "veiled threats" and political interference in the criminal prosecution of the Quebec construction and engineering company - and he believes that his evidence "will be of assistance" to the committee's "consideration of these matters. "

Butts says that he needs "a short period of time" to receive legal advice about producing his elements and relevant documents to the committee.

<snip>

After Wilson-Raybould's testimony wrapped up, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer called for Trudeau’s resignation and for the RCMP to "immediately" investigate what he called "numerous examples of obstruction of justice."

In a statement on Thursday, Scheer said that he has sent a letter to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki asking for an investigation to be launched.

"According to the facts as have been revealed in media reports, Parliamentary testimony from Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, and most significantly the recent comments of the former Attorney General, Canadians rightly ought to be concerned that criminal law has been violated," Scheer wrote in the letter.

_*The RCMP have confirmed that they have received the letter and are "reviewing" it.*_

<snip>

On her way out of the committee on Wednesday, _*Wilson-Raybould said she will continue to serve as the MP for Vancouver-Granville, and that she doesn't "anticipate being kicked out of caucus."*_

"I was elected by the constituents of Vancouver-Granville to represent them as a Liberal Member of Parliament," she said.

<snip>

During questioning before the House Justice Committee, Wilson-Raybould suggested that future testimony from the senior officials she had named in her opening statement would be important to the committee's work. _*Previous attempts from the opposition to call many of those she has named were voted down by the Liberal members on the committee.*_

Asked whether he'd let these people testify, Trudeau said he will respect the independence of the committee.

Throughout her testimony, she cautioned there were limitations in her ability to speak broadly about the case because of the specifics of the waiver of solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidence that Trudeau had issued. She was not able to speak about any relevant matters that occurred after she was shuffled into veterans affairs. An NDP motion to call on Trudeau to expand the conditions of the waiver was defeated when the meeting concluded.

The opposition members on the committee were keen to hold more meetings soon, possibly next week even though the House isn’t sitting, even prior to Butts’ asking to appear. His request is likely to further bolster the desire to meet.

There is also a desire from the Conservative and NDP MPs to invite Wilson-Raybould back to add to her testimony, which she signalled openness to when she was before the committee.

The MPs on the committee are currently meeting behind closed doors to discuss “committee business,” which could include the next steps for the study, including future witnesses.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/02/27/trudeau-now-finds-himself-up-to-his-neck-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal.html

Trudeau now finds himself up to his neck in the SNC-Lavalin scandal

By Chantal Hébert

Wed., Feb. 27, 2019

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was already up to his neck in the SNC-Lavalin mess. On Wednesday, former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould pushed his head down further. _*It will be harder for the Liberal government to dig itself out of the deep hole she dug before the next campaign.*_

<snip>


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Who is Admiral Scheer?













Spot the difference?  ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (28 Feb 2019)

The game is afoot! Pass the whiskey please!!


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

You're doing yeoman service Loachman, thanks.

This line from Paul Wells in Macleans......



> ...her testimony before the Commons Justice Committee establishes pretty clearly that the *hucksters and worse were running the show. Led by the grinning legatee who taints the Prime Ministers’ office*.



That line from that source on that platform.....


----------



## ballz (28 Feb 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Good notes have saved my bacon a few times in court.
> 
> I usually take copious point form notes during meetings leaving space below each to fill in the details later either during round table discussions or Q&As.



I am and always have been a horrible person when it comes to not taking notes. I went through an entire undergraduate degree and probably took less than 10 pages of notes. When the discussions about the CDS meeting with Butts and Telford came up and he never took notes, I actually never found it that unbelievable as I almost certainly would not have and if I wrote anything down it'd be on a napkin which would get washed out in my laundry. Admittedly I don't find myself saying "Damn, I forgot x detail, I wish I had written that down," but if someone were to ATI my notes on anything they'd probably think I deliberately burned them or forged fake meaningless scribbles assuming I could actually find anything I had written down over a month ago.

But when I come across diligent, organized note-takers like JWR or my peer who even writes down the most seemingly meaningless of all details (like the DTG of someone else's staff member's oil change... simply because it happens to be said out loud during the meeting for no apparent reason... and it ended up saving his neck), I find myself pretty envious of that quality. I think I'll go clean my room and my act up.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Feb 2019)

Ballz: voice notes on a smartphone. There are apps that will convert said notes to text. Cheers.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Feb 2019)

> Personally, I wish the Liberal caucus members who are not part of the government (they are the majority, BTW, as only members who hold an appointment as either ministers, or in the larger sense as secretaries of state, are actually part of the government - not any backbenchers) would get the courage to actually do their job as our watchers of the government and actually oust him.



The leader of the party approves (controls) their nomination to run for Parliament. Unless a whole passel do so, and are successful, their career as a politician is over. If they are in first term, without re-election - no pension.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Feb 2019)

5 Former Attorney General ask RCMP to investigate:
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/5-former-attorney-generals-sign-letter-urging-rcmp-to-criminally-investigate-snc-lavalin-claims/


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (28 Feb 2019)

Yes, Rifleman. That is one of the ways political parties (by which I mean the permanent direction of the parties who are full time politicos who run the show) have usurped the powers of Parliament, and of their own party members for that matter.

It's not in the constitution, which does not mention political parties anywhere, that you find the power to endorse candidates for an election.

That power, which originally rested with the actual riding associations holding a local nomination, was first moved to the central party - but upon nomination by local riding associations. Then, in 2000, under the guise of the creation in the Electoral Act of "official" parties (before this vocab. was introduced to the Act, anyone could claim to be a political party and act as such) recognition, the central party took the various riding associations power away from them by using the power they enshrined in Art 406 (2) of the Act to declare to the Chief Electoral Officer, within ten days of issuance of the writs, the identity of the person (usually the Leader) who can endorse the prospective candidates of the "official" party.

When that happened, we took the last step in moving from political parties being loose associations of like minded (from a political philosophy point of view) candidates sharing some financing machine for their local electoral needs to a centralized small cadre of politicos running a centralized machine with the sole objective not of watching and controlling the government, but of becoming the government at the expense of Parliament - now to be composed of automatons doing the government's biding instead of keeping it in check. That, BTW, is also why the job of M.P., if you don't get selected to be a minister, is getting so little regards from Canadian at this point in time. There was a lot more respect for ordinary M.P.'s up to the 70's when they were doing their proper job. That is the reason why it is also held in higher esteem in the US, where they don't expect to become part of the Government (the Executive).

It could still be reversed in Canada, but it would need the concerted effort of the M.P.'s who are not member of the actual government - even if from the "governing" party.

My personal view: to paraphrase a near closing dictum from the movie The Hunt for Red October, "A little Rebellion from time to time is not necessarily a bad thing".


----------



## brihard (28 Feb 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Actually, Brihard, there is no such thing in Canada as a "elected majority government".
> 
> First in the history of Canada we have elected exactly ZERO "governments". Our government is a monarchy run hereditarily by the Queen. She appoints a Prime Minister who then selects his/her cabinet. There are no obligation whatsoever that the member of the Cabinet come from  Parliament. The only requirement is that the P.M. have and retain the confidence of the elected members of Parliament.
> 
> ...



You’re being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. What I was said was substantially correct in the context I was speaking about. Given that much of our system of government functions according to well entrenched and understood conventions, it is correct to say that we essentially elect our governments- that’s what happen when we hand a party the majority of seats in Parliament. We do not pick the ministers at the polls, but then that’s not what I was talking about- I was referring to the GG’s role in dissolving Parliament, and why doing so in the leadup to an election would not be necessary in these circumstances, nor particularly appropriate.


----------



## Loachman (28 Feb 2019)

https://www.abbynews.com/news/wilson-raybould-testimony-sour-grapes-abbotsf0rd-area-mp-says/

UPDATE: Abbotsford-area MP apologizes for 'inappropriate' comments

Jati Sidhu had suggested that Jody Wilson-Raybould's father was 'pulling the strings'

Tyler Olsen Feb. 28, 2019 10:36 a.m.

Abbotsford-area MP Jati Sidhu apologized in the House of Commons Thursday just hours after he told The News that the former attorney general wasn't "a team player" (A good thing, in this case, and which has garnered so much respected from the general public - Loachman) and that her father may be "pulling the strings."

In an interview with The News Thursday morning, Sidhu had dismissed Wednesday's explosive testimony by Jody Wilson-Raybould as "sour grapes," and said her discomfort with what she described as political interference in a legal decision was the result of a lack of experience.

Sidhu's comments had drawn criticism from political opponents and observers from across the country, with both NDP and Conservative MPs calling them "misogynistic." Less than three hours after speaking to The News, Sidhu apologized for his comments as Question Period drew to a close.

<snip>

But Sidhu, the _*first-term*_ (Just like she is, yet he still criticized her experience level - Loachman) Liberal MP representing the sprawling Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon riding, said he didn't find Wilson-Raybould's words to be alarming. Sidhu said the discussions about prosecuting SNC-Lavalin were "normal."

"It's a discussion: they do it every day, every time," he said.

Sidhu repeatedly said that if Wilson-Raybould was unhappy, she should have resigned immediately. He chalked up her discomfort to "a lack of experience," and said she’s not "a team player."

"The way she's acting, I think she couldn’t handle the stress," he said. "I think there’s somebody else behind – maybe her father – pulling the strings."

<snip>


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Feb 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The leader of the party approves (controls) their nomination to run for Parliament. Unless a whole passel do so, and are successful, their career as a politician is over. If they are in first term, without re-election - no pension.



Rifleman - it doesn't have to be that way.  OGBD is right.

Both the British PM (Theresa May) and the Leader of the Opposition (Jeremy Corbyn) are both running scared just now because they do not command the full support of their parties in the House, let alone commanding the House. Things are dire enough for May that she has apparently had to promise to quit as leader as soon as she successfully completes Brexit on 29 March.  Failure to complete Brexit will mean she is pushed rather than being allowed to jump.

There is nothing in parliamentary rules preventing the House finding a new Prime Minister without needing to have a general election - in London or Ottawa.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Mar 2019)

Once a decision is made, anything done to re-open the discussion is a form of "pressure".  Many people, to their rapidly evolving regret, don't seem to understand that or understand why they can't just explain it away by replacing "pressure" with some other word.

I eagerly anticipate the performances of all the persons closely involved who don't realize that now is an excellent time to limit their self-inflicted damage by saying as little as possible.


----------



## Kat Stevens (1 Mar 2019)

These guys could make a killing in Ottawa, best legal advice ever.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ADIWeDMgQ


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Mar 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Once a decision is made, anything done to re-open the discussion is a form of "pressure".  Many people, to their rapidly evolving regret, don't seem to understand that or understand why they can't just explain it away by replacing "pressure" with some other word.
> 
> I eagerly anticipate the performances of all the persons closely involved who don't realize that now is an excellent time to limit their self-inflicted damage by saying as little as possible.



I also find it ironic that many of the very same people who loudly decry the many moral and ethical lapses of the President to the south, cannot seem to recognize or even defend similar behaviour in our own Prime Minister.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Mar 2019)

Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
			
		

> These guys could make a killing in Ottawa, best legal advice ever.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ADIWeDMgQ



Priceless.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Mar 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I don't necessarily agree. Now that this issue is in the open, there will be a veritable feeding fest as media dials up every source they have in the government looking for additional tidbits, other allegations of corruption, anything they can even remotely connect to this issue (think VAdm Norman, etc).



Now that it's out in the open? Perhaps. 

I can still see the media doing a tight wire walk between covering this story, looking for more dirt/leads etc.. and pulling their punches not wanting to get on the Liberals bad side should this whole thing blow over.

Damage control, risk assessment, whatever you want to call it. 

Mrs Wilson-Raybould getting punted to veterans affairs minister, to me, is proof to me that going against the PMOs wishes isn't something the PM takes to kindly-from anyone. Media isn't stupid and I don't suspect they want to be under the Liberals crosshairs.


----------



## The Bread Guy (1 Mar 2019)

Sir_Spams_a_lot said:
			
		

> These guys could make a killing in Ottawa, best legal advice ever.
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ADIWeDMgQ


 

BTW, new VAC Min being sworn in this AM ...


----------



## QV (1 Mar 2019)

One of the disturbing aspects in this was when Telford stated if JWR felt uncomfortable doing their bidding they would line up favourable opeds... and that she wasn’t interested in legalities... allegedly.  Nothing worse than corruption in high office.


----------



## Remius (1 Mar 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> One of the disturbing aspects in this was when Telford stated if JWR felt uncomfortable doing their bidding they would line up favourable opeds... and that she wasn’t interested in legalities... allegedly.  Nothing worse than corruption in high office.



Not surprising.  No less disturbing though about the legalities.


----------



## Strike (1 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I also find it ironic that many of the very same people who loudly decry the many moral and ethical lapses of the President to the south, cannot seem to recognize or even defend similar behaviour in our own Prime Minister.



Opposite sides of the same coin, those two.


----------



## observor 69 (1 Mar 2019)

Strike said:
			
		

> Opposite sides of the same coin, those two.



Really? Not quite, Trumps in a league of his own.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Mar 2019)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Really? Not quite, Trumps in a league of his own.



Really?/ ....2 years under a microscope with a media that hates you and nothing.  Up here, a media you just tried to buy, who generally gush on you, and the stories just keep on coming.    So if I read you right, you're saying Mr. Trump is just that much smarter then Mr. Trudeau??


----------



## Remius (1 Mar 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Really?/ ....2 years under a microscope with a media that hates you and nothing.  Up here, a media you just tried to buy, who generally gush on you, and the stories just keep on coming.    So if I read you right, you're saying Mr. Trump is just that much smarter then Mr. Trudeau??



Depends.  Fox news is pretty much what you consider the CBC to be for Trudeau.  Fox obviously does not hate Trump.  Plus Trump has the national enquirer willing to buy up people's stories about him to quash them.  

Trump is indeed in a league of his own.  no comparing him to anyone.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Mar 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Really?/ ....2 years under a microscope with a media that hates you and nothing.  Up here, a media you just tried to buy, who generally gush on you, and the stories just keep on coming.    So if I read you right, you're saying Mr. Trump is just that much smarter then Mr. Trudeau??



Agreed.


----------



## Cloud Cover (1 Mar 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> One of the disturbing aspects in this was when Telford stated if JWR felt uncomfortable doing their bidding they would line up favourable opeds... and that she wasn’t interested in legalities... allegedly.  Nothing worse than corruption in high office.



Well that can be achieved without much effort and it is not necessarily skull duggery. They could, for example, have an article written in a political magazine by a lobbyist or academic. For legal opinions, they can contact a lawyer and have them write a legal article and have it published somewhere, then point a journalists to the article. It would make interesting reading.

Companies, activist groups, special interests and NGO's do these things all the time, is it really fair to expect that the political staff of the PMO would not, cannot or must not do the same?  

I think where perhaps we can all be disappointed is where the mainstream press corps stray away from the cardinal objective of journalism:
“A journalist is the lookout on the bridge of the ship of state,” Joseph Pulitzer wrote. “The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations.”  

and:
"Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery."

This objective of journalism is the defining difference between the role of the free press (know the right, preserve the virtue) and Op Eds.  Op Eds do not usually contain original reporting, and do very little to preserve and protect the virtue of the public (although that is not always the case.) The OP Ed objective may very well be to sham, but that is not journalism, it is opinion.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Mar 2019)

Baden Guy said:
			
		

> Really? Not quite, Trump is in a league of his own.


You're right. As President, exactly what the US needed.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Depends.  Fox news is pretty much what you consider the CBC to be for Trudeau.  Fox obviously does not hate Trump.  Plus Trump has the national enquirer willing to buy up people's stories about him to quash them.
> 
> Trump is indeed in a league of his own.  no comparing him to anyone.


Fox News is roughly 50/50 on pro/anti Trump stories.

People read his tweets for themselves.

Unlike the opposition, he's not telling the electorate that they are chirping from the cheap seats, or that he's the boss. Au contraire, he tells the electorate that they are the boss.

But I get it.  Orange Man Bad.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Mar 2019)

Back on track: these allegations have filtered into the US media and my US comrades have been asking me about it.  
I get the same media they do; I can only explain our system but have no specifics.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2019)

We deploy overseas to developing and rebuilding countries, who are rife with bribery, payoffs and corruption, and lecture them about democracy, honour, integrity and doing the right thing. Like we're the example. 

Pretty embarrassing.


----------



## Remius (2 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> We deploy overseas to developing and rebuilding countries, who are rife with bribery, payoffs and corruption, and lecture them about democracy, honour, integrity and doing the right thing. Like we're the example.
> 
> Pretty embarrassing.



We’ve had corruption scandals before and we will again.  The difference between us and them is our media is free to report on it or not.  People like JWR can can take a stand against the leader and the most that happens is get demoted in cabinet and possibly thrown out of caucus and not have to fear that her family or her might disappear.  That we have a police force that can independently investigate our leaders if they do commit crimes.  That our opposition parties can publicly chastise our sitting government.

It is embarrassing but we are no where even near what those countries are.  Comparing us to them I see hyperbole at best.  No different that the Trump/dictator comparisons.

What I will agree on though is that Trudeau and his gang have given those countries something to point back at with despite the difference.


----------



## Haggis (2 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> What I will agree on though is that Trudeau and his gang have given those countries something to point back at with despite the difference.



Which is something that China has already done in the Huawei case.


----------



## Loachman (2 Mar 2019)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbCa6QGs31w
EXPLAINED: Why should you care about the Justin Trudeau/ SNC Lavalin Affair? | Michelle Rempel

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-investigation-obstruction-quetions-1.5037252

As RCMP lies in wait, legal minds ponder whether SNC-Lavalin scandal warrants criminal probe

'It's not clearly not obstruction,' says an Ottawa-based defence lawyer

Catharine Tunney CBC News Posted: Mar 01, 2019 4:00 AM ET

<snip>

According to the Criminal Code, obstructing justice covers _*"everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner ... to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice."*_

In her testimony, Wilson-Raybould said she faced intense political pressure and veiled threats related to the SNC-Lavalin affair, and was warned directly by Trudeau about the negative consequences if the company faced prosecution. SNC-Lavalin was facing corruption charges for contracts in Libya and was lobbying for a remediation agreement as an alternative to criminal prosecution.

Former Conservative justice minister Peter MacKay said there's enough from Wilson-Raybould's testimony to warrant further examination - either through a public inquiry or a criminal investigation.

"What's happened here is that _*somebody in the office gave her the impression there would be consequences if she was not to follow the instructions, and when that didn't happen we know that she did lose her job*_," he said.

_*"I come back to the definition of the Criminal Code section which speaks of perverting justice, it speaks of interference, it speaks of in some way trying to shape the outcome of a prosecution, and the elements appear to be there."*_

Criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger said _*an obstruction of justice charge wouldn't be hard to prove in court*_. He pointed to a meeting Gerry Butts, the prime minister's former principal secretary, had with Wilson-Raybould's trusted chief of staff Jessica Prince where he allegedly said, "There is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference."

"If that is not a smoking gun when it comes to actual interference and obstruction, I don't know what is," said Neuberger.

"This has stepped over the bounds of inappropriate; it has certainly crossed into the realm of criminal conduct."

Spratt said he doesn't think the case is a "slam dunk," for police and prosecutors, but "it's starting to sound a lot like obstruction."

Canadian Civil Liberties Association executive director Michael Bryant, who in the first few days of the scandal called for a police investigation, now says this issue isn't as clear cut.

"The evidence for obstruction of justice requires evidence of intent. So you need to have evidence of the prime minister intended to obstruct justice, and we didn't hear any of that," he said Thursday.

<snip>

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/01/four-important-questions-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal.html

Four important questions in the SNC-Lavalin scandal

By Chantal Hébert Fri., March 1, 2019

MONTREAL-Another week of political drama on Parliament Hill finds the SNC-Lavalin affair no closer to closure. In the aftermath of Jody Wilson-Raybould's appearance at the Commons justice committee, even the future of the prime minister as Liberal leader has become fair game for speculation.

If anything, the former attorney general's testimony has left many Canadians with more questions than definitive answers.

Here are four more:

1. A central assumption in Wilson-Raybould's testimony is that given the same facts, any ethical attorney general would have come to the same conclusion and refused to use his or her discretion to overturn the public prosecutor's decision to pursue a criminal trial against SNC-Lavalin. But is that really the case?

To this day, her successor, David Lametti, along with the prime minister, has kept open the option of issuing a directive to spare the engineering firm the risk of a criminal conviction and a 10-year ban on bidding for federal contracts by offering it a deferred prosecution agreement in lieu of a trial.

This is a difference of opinion at least as fundamental to the understanding of this saga as each side's view of the pressures that attended Wilson-Raybould's refusal to take the route of a negotiated plea.

Inasmuch as she did not or could not share her rationale for declining to redirect the course of the federal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and for resisting all overtures to reconsider her decision, it is hard to come to an informed judgment as to whether her thinking on this file was as unassailable as she makes it out to be.

One can doubt that it was and still find that the political lobbying she was subjected to was inappropriate.

2. The SNC-Lavalin file commanded an impressive amount of high-level political attention. But would an NDP or Conservative government have been any less responsive to the firm's lobbying?

It is no accident that in their French-language interviews, Conservative and New Democrat MPs from Quebec have been at pains to stress that their parties are not on a vendetta against SNC-Lavalin.

With 9,000 Canadian jobs potentially on the line, any responsible federal government would have taken the time to carefully weigh the option of mitigating the possible damage to the firm's future following a criminal conviction.

That is not to say a Conservative or an NDP government would have come to the same conclusion as Trudeau. But until allegations of political interference surfaced and even as they had been apprised by SNC-Lavalin of its efforts to secure a remediation agreement, neither party had shown any appetite for a fight with the Liberals over the issue.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5012770/jody-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-david-lametti/

March 1, 2019 4:18 pm

Lametti says he didn't know Wilson-Raybould rejected cutting SNC-Lavalin a deal when he took over

By Amanda Connolly

Attorney General David Lametti says he didn't know that his predecessor, Jody Wilson-Raybould, had already made a decision not to cut SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid criminal trial when he took over the post and began learning about the matter before him.

He was also mum on whether knowing that would keep him from reversing the decision. (Reversing the decision would not look good for the Liberals. This is the second trap that they have set for themselves, not including the scandal and cover-up themselves. The first was Jody Wilson-Raybould, in that Trudeau cannot eject her from caucus without the appearance of further vindictiveness and meanness, yet she will still be there to taunt him [even by doing nothing] and possibly building support for herself within the ranks of Liberal MPs. - Loachman)

<snip>

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/03/01/caught-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal-canadas-top-civil-servant-should-help-us-understand-his-job-expert-says.html

By Alex Boutilier Ottawa Bureau
Fri., March 1, 2019

OTTAWA - Canada's top public servant should explain how he balances his role as the non-partisan head of the bureaucracy and the prime minister's deputy, according to one expert on the country's public service.

Prof. Donald Savoie, one of Canada's preeminent scholars on the public service, said that following reforms initiated in 1989, the role of the Privy Council clerk - the nation's top bureaucrat - has changed and he or she now walks a delicate line between public service neutrality and responsibility to the government of the day, whatever its stripe.	

Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick - who has faced allegations of partisanship and opposition calls for his resignation over his testimony and role in the SNC-Lavalin affair - should tell Canadians how he manages to strike that balance, Savoie said.

"I think he owes it to the public service to explain how he squares the ... roles," Savoie, who teaches public administration at the Université of Moncton, told the Star on Thursday.

"I would be careful, however, to say that Wernick became partisan. I don't think we can accuse Wernick of being partisan … but I would say, though, I'm sure he has an explanation," Savoie added.

"So let's hear it, how he squares the role of deputy minister to the prime minister with his other … responsibilities."

<snip>

Because his testimony largely matched the Liberal government's version of events at the time, and because he suggested a Conservative senator should be condemned for using violent political imagery in a speech, pundits accused him of partisan support for the Trudeau government.

_*But the modern position of clerk actually combines three roles, Savoie said: the secretary of cabinet, the head of the non-partisan public service, and the deputy minister - or top bureaucrat - to the prime minister.

The three roles were combined into one position in the Public Service 2000 under reforms initiated by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney in 1989 - part of a reimaging of the role and function of the public service that took place in the United States and the United Kingdom around the same time.*_

It was a monumental shift that public governance researchers are still writing about today. _*One of the criticisms of the reforms was it encouraged senior public servants to engage in "promiscuous partisanship" in the words of the late scholar Peter Aucoin - a blurring of the line between the rough-and-tumble of politics and the dispassionate execution of the government's vision.*_

Savoie said he didn't agree with the changes in 1989 and he doesn't agree with them now.

"I'm not sure it was ever tenable" for the three responsibilities to rest with one person, Savoie said.

<snip>


----------



## Loachman (2 Mar 2019)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/canada/trudeau-scandal-snc-lavalin.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=World

By Catherine Porter and Ian Austen

March 1, 2019

TORONTO - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada promised a fresh approach to politics, one that was based on openness, decency and liberalism.

Now he is embroiled in a scandal involving accusations of back-room deal-making and bullying tactics, all to support a Canadian company accused of bribing the Libyan government when it was run by the dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Canadian newspapers are filled with outrage and opposition parties are calling for a resignation. Elections are still seven months away, but some members of Mr. Trudeau's own governing party fear the scandal has armed opposition parties with rich campaign fodder against its leader, who promised "sunny ways" in politics.

"This is a huge, huge blow to Justin Trudeau's personal brand and Justin Trudeau's promise of doing politics differently," said Shachi Kurl, the executive director of the Angus Reid Institute, a nonprofit polling firm based in Vancouver.

<snip>

But so much of politics is appearances, and the optics are terrible - of a self-described feminist, who had promised a new, open and transparent way of governing, sending aides described as his henchmen to gang up on an Indigenous woman in efforts to bend her will.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould's appointment to justice minister had seemed proof to many that Mr. Trudeau was serious about correcting the country's wrongs against its Indigenous population and treating Indigenous people as respected partners in the country, as he had promised during the election.

Now, that legacy is in question because of Ms. Wilson-Raybould's demotion to the post of veterans affairs minister, which she quit last week.

"Reconciliation also means respecting the voices of Indigenous people," said Sheila North, a former Indigenous leader in northern Manitoba. "This whole display has shown, in the end, money and power is more important than building reconciliation."

<snip>

Many of Mr. Trudeau's opponents are saying that the entire controversy proves that Mr. Trudeau, who appointed the country's first gender-balanced cabinet, is a "fake feminist" who uses women instead of supporting them.

"Why are not all women in that caucus, and their so-called feminist allies, calling for the prime minister's resignation?" said Michelle Rempel, a Conservative member of Parliament in the House of Commons.

<snip>

"People who are predicting the demise of Justin Trudeau or the Liberals are not making safe bets," said Emmett Macfarlane, a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo. Much depends on what happens over the next few months and whether the prime minister's office is able to ward off a full-blown public inquiry into the scandal.

"If the election was next month, it would probably be devastating and it would directly shape the campaign," Professor Macfarlane said. "It's hard to say if this will be on Canadians' minds in August or September."

Meanwhile, Mr. Trudeau has seven months to regain what he can of his reputation and hope the scandal fades from voters' minds by the time they return to the polls.

"He has to stop any pretense and veneer that he's the 'sunny ways' guy or Mr. Clean," said Ms. Kurl, the executive director of the nonprofit polling firm.

She added, "Now he'll have to compete in the old-style politics."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/canada/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin.html

Who's Investigating Justin Trudeau - and What Do They Hope to Find?

By Ian Austen

March 1, 2019

<snip>

Here's a look at who's seeking answers, what they could uncover, and who else might still take a peek:

What's Already Underway

- Parliamentary hearings: The House of Commons' Standing Committee on Justice is where Ms. Wilson-Raybould finally broke her silence this week. It's also where other key players are set to appear, notably Gerald Butts, Mr. Trudeau's friend who stepped down last month as his top political adviser amid the scandal.

_*But the justice committee isn't set up to run a full-scale investigation. It has neither a team of people digging up evidence, nor the power to order up internal government documents.*_

_*And, as the opposition has repeatedly pointed out this week, the Liberals control the committee. This makes it unlikely that anything the panel does will inflict much harm on Mr. Trudeau.*_

- An ethics investigation: After a request from two New Democratic Party lawmakers, the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, is also on the case. _*But by law, he can only look for possible conflicts of interest.*_

_*Simply applying pressure for political advantage doesn't amount to such a conflict, earlier commissioners have ruled. Past investigations by the ethics commissioner's office have dragged on for more than a year, and the office has no power to order serious sanctions.*_

What May Come Next

- A criminal investigation: The Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and others have asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to look into possible obstruction of justice. The police force, citing standard policy, will not confirm whether it's started an investigation or plans to do so.

_*And there's a good chance that we'll never know whether the Mounties made Mr. Trudeau the target of an investigation.*_ The reason goes back to 2005, when the force sent a fax to a New Democratic member of Parliament confirming that it was investigating then-Finance Minister Ralph Goodale in connection with illegal stock trading. Arriving in the midst of a federal election campaign, the fax exploded like a bomb. Mr. Goodale was cleared; a public servant in the finance department later pleaded guilty to insider trading charges.

An investigation later found no fault with the police force, but the Mounties were widely criticized as having meddled in politics. They have been more circumspect about politically sensitive investigations since then.

Today, as Mr. Trudeau's public safety minister, Mr. Goodale oversees the Mounties.

- An independent public inquiry: Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the New Democrats, was the first to push for an independent special commission to look into the affair, and the idea has support from other opposition parties.

_*Mr. Trudeau has taken the position that the Justice Committee hearings and the conflict of interest investigation are all that's needed.*_ (For the very reasons stated above, no doubt. - Loachman)

_*An inquiry is the least appealing option for the Liberals, who remember all too well the Gomery Commission.*_ Then-Prime Minister Paul Martin meant for it to clear the air around the Liberals after a corruption scandal involving the previous Liberal government. But it backfired. Evidence presented at the inquiry only highlighted the corruption, and Mr. Martin's loss in the 2006 election was widely attributed to the hearings.

_*Any inquiry into the current scandal is unlikely to be finished before October's vote. But the hearings would certainly provide the kind of publicity the Liberals don't want leading up to, and during, an election campaign.*_

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/03/01/trudeau-refuses-opposition-demand-to-recall-parliament-to-debate-snc-lavalin-affair.html

Trudeau refuses opposition demand to recall Parliament over SNC-Lavalin affair

By Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau

Fri., March 1, 2019

OTTAWA - The Trudeau government has refused an opposition demand to recall Parliament to deal with the SNC-Lavalin affair, and is setting the stage to counter Jody Wilson-Raybould's allegations of improper political meddling in the company's criminal trial.

<snip>


----------



## Loachman (2 Mar 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-trudeau-virtuecrats-come-tumbling-down

Rex Murphy: The Trudeau virtuecrats come tumbling down
Jody Wilson-Raybould, in her person and conduct, is all the Liberal government was supposed to be about

March 1, 2019 3:04 PM EST

Justin Trudeau has the look of the high school hero who's just fallen off his snowboard in front of all the twirling cheerleaders.

It's been a hard week for Mr. Trudeau. It must have been even harder for the Gender Analytics Team down in the boiler room of the Department of Public Works (it's next to the Deliverology stables, just past the Memorial to Proportional Representation). They've had to parse Jody Wilson-Raybould's fierce testimony and sequence it with the government's equity-feminism.

No one has sung hymns to strong, independent women more fervently than Mr. Trudeau. It doesn't wear well that the strongest and most independent woman in his entire cabinet no long feels she can, with honour, sit in that same cabinet room with him.

There'll be no more roundtables with Tina Brown and Gloria Steinem. Ivanka Trump will cross the street when she sees him coming.

It doesn't wear well that a strong, independent woman, determined to secure the mast of the rule of law, is put under siege for months by a train of flacks and aides, principal secretaries and chiefs of staff - supplemented by the Black Knight of the Clerk of the Privy Council - to work a deal, to finesse, to go around that rule of law because "… there's an election in Quebec ... (and) I'm the member for Papineau." It doesn't wear well that a strong, independent woman was subject to threats, veiled and not-so-veiled, effectively harried and harassed because she refused to politically oblige the big boys in the PMO. The Feminist-in-Chief took a massive hit.

Mr. Trudeau scooted past the "Kokanee Grope," but that involved a mere reporter. And besides, as he so grandly assured the world at the time, that incident provided us with a "collective awakening" that different "people experience things differently," an insight into human psychology locked in darkness until that very moment. This was Jordan Peterson-level mentoring.

But the Jody Wilson-Raybould clash, as we used to say at home, is an entirely different kettle of fish. Here was no allegedly wandering hand, but a "consistent and sustained … inappropriate effort" to warp a decision of the attorney general of Canada in a matter of criminal charges against a Quebec company.

When her principles came up against his expediency, what was a male-feminist Galahad to do? Why he acted like the oldest, white-haired, cigar-chomping boy in the oldest boys' club that was. He demoted her. And during the interval, when she was bound to silence, he went about variously telling her story for her - even to the point of (I hate the term, but it's a nugget in Mr. Trudeau's set) "mansplaining" that her staying in cabinet "spoke for itself."

Hours later, she left. That, too, spoke for itself. Ever so much clearly. Ironically, her departure might be the prelude to and necessary condition for the prime minister's own.

Now in an ordinary government, none of this would matter. In a business-as-usual, this-is-how-we've-always-done-politics, principles-be-dammed, we've-got-work-to-do government, who'd care? But this is a Trudeau government, where feminist values and the purest sensitivity to women are as sparkling diamonds in the firmament of righteousness and sanctimony.

This is a government that lives and thrives on its profession of vast moral pretensions. It is the government forever preaching of values, of moral aspiration, of doing things differently, of real gender equity, of promoting feminism, of openness and transparency, of nourishing the Earth and all her fuzzy creatures; this is a government of every tender, soft, progressive value known to peoplekind. Mr. Trudeau is its brand and the brand is everything.

This is a government of virtuecrats, or it is nothing. That's the problem. Live by the image, die by the image. Play by the symbol, fall by the symbol.

Four hours of testimony on Wednesday afternoon went like a torpedo through a castle of glass. The details are known and in a hundred columns by now. Jody Wilson-Raybould, in her person and conduct, is all the Trudeau government was supposed to be about.

She is a superbly accomplished woman. If role models mean anything, she has to be a luminous star for every young girl and boy in every First Nation in the country. For she has soared to the highest pinnacle of political power of any, ever, of her community. She sat, till last week, in the chair Lester Pearson offered to Pierre Trudeau to bring that sultan into the national story. To coin a phrase, a fearful symmetry indeed.

Truth and Reconciliation is going to be a hard sell if a government leadership that came to power preaching feminism and the utter moral urgency of Aboriginal concerns works now to bring the greatest exemplar of both categories down. There will be two messages if it does. That feminism counts only when it doesn't get in the way of politics. And that respect for Aboriginals works as a brand but not as a practice.

If the attempt is made, it will not be an easy glide down for Mr. Trudeau. For Jody Wilson-Raybould has shown her qualities.

There is more steel in that woman than ever came out of Hamilton. Her mind is keen, her will is her own, her moral centre assured and determined. These qualities are the very anti-matter of spin-doctors and crisis-management shops, kryptonite for the bleating flacks and the sweating elves of the PMO talking-points foundry.

Mr. Trudeau has spoken of Wilson-Raybould's presentation to the justice committee. "I have taken knowledge of her testimony..." - an odd locution, sounding like something from the Book of Exodus as translated by the Kielburger brothers. "... but there are still reflections to have on next steps" - which is, we must hope, his way of saying he disagrees.

But really, it's just mush anyway you look at it. Much like Chrystia Freeland's comment "I believe … she spoke her truth," (accent on "her" you can be sure), which is a precious piece of equivocation even for a diplomat. Does no one in this government know what a real sentence sounds like?

Mush won't melt steel. Wilson-Raybould has facts, details, specifics and principles. A deadpan face and urgently low-voiced platitudes will not prevail against them.

The fate of the Trudeau government now hangs on a contest between character and image. I expect they've already put out the call for all the king's horses and all the king's men ....


----------



## Haggis (2 Mar 2019)

My predictions are:

1.  that the new AG will order a DPA based on "revised legal advice provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions";

2.  that the Gerald butts will testify there was no wrongdoing and Clerk of the Privy Concil will, once again stress that in light of the DPA being issued, it's clear that the influence exerted by the PMO et al on JWR has been shown to be wholly appropriate; and

3. by the time the House reconvenes, this will have been overtaken by events and the release of the pre-election budget full of goodies will have returned the shine to the Trudeau brand.


.... except for the wild cards of the Norman trial, China and JWR making a follow up statement.


----------



## Loachman (2 Mar 2019)

Your first two predictions would not surprise me, but, with recent articles in the press about our rapidly-worsening financial situation, I don't think that there will be much ability to throw many "goodies" around, and many journalists will probably not speak/type kindly about such a hollow and withered carrot.

And on the matter at hand, I doubt that the press would just say "Right. Silly us. Everything's good now. Do carry on", though.

I'm pretty sure that he's lost them forever, at this point - and a good chunk of the general public as well.

It's not just the corruption and pressure/bullying. It's also the sordid cover-up, which is still ongoing:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/its-time-for-justin-trudeau-to-put-his-cards-on-the-table/

It's time for Justin Trudeau to put his cards on the table

Andrew MacDougall: Until everyone involved in the scandal testifies - not just Gerry Butts - this looks like a cover-up, not a transparent process

by Andrew MacDougall Mar 1, 2019 

It's another day, and another defence for the Liberals on SNC-Lavalin.

For those of you who are algorithmically shielded from bad Liberal news, we've now moved from "false" after the story broke weeks ago to "yeah, well, you might think 11 people having multiple meetings or phone calls with the non-partisan attorney general or her staff over four months is pressure" after Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony.

Struggling to draw a line - any line - under the controversy, Trudeau and the Liberals are now pushing respect for the ethics commissioner and the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights like it's a new religion.

(As an aside: imagine how poorly things have to be going to point to an office that has already found you guilty of breaking the law once, over the Aga Khan vacation.)

Only they're not letting anyone preach.

Will the justice committee be hearing from Trudeau? No. How about Katie Telford? No. Bill Morneau? No. Ben Chin? No. Mathieu Bouchard? No. Elder Marques? No. Jessica Prince? No. Amy Archer? Sadly, she's a 'no,' too.

You'll note the above list doesn't include Gerry Butts, the Prime Minister's (former?) right-hand man, who yesterday tweeted out a letter to justice committee chair Anthony Housefather requesting an appearance. Butts will now appear on March 6, pending the sorting of some legal advice.

But why does Butts - who people jokingly (?) call Prime Minister Butts - get to appear, but not any of the other people accused of inappropriate behaviour in Wilson-Raybould's testimony? If you were trying to prove to Canadians you weren't interested in getting at the truth, this would be a good way of doing it.

Not that questioning Butts is without value.

We still, for example, don't know why Butts suddenly quit his post on Feb. 18. There didn't appear to be anything lethal about his conduct in the public domain to that point. Indeed, his resignation letter went out of its way to admit no fault, although Wilson-Raybould's testimony later contradicted his take. After being warned by Jessica Prince, Wilson-Raybould's chief of staff, that his Dec. 18 intervention on SNC was "interference", the former attorney general has Butts allegedly replying: "Jess, there is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference." Did he say that? And what does it mean (other than the obvious)?

Butts will surely rebut that point, but it would also be good to hear him on any conversations surrounding Wilson-Raybould's meeting with Trudeau the day ahead of her resignation from cabinet (presuming he was there). This is increasingly looking like an area that MPs on the committee must explore.

The circumstances surrounding her resignation certainly appear important to Wilson-Raybould. Once Trudeau signed the order-in-council allowing her to testify, _*Wilson-Raybould quickly issued a letter pointing out it didn't release her to speak about the events after her shuffle to veterans affairs. Why didn't Trudeau include that period? And what makes it so important to Wilson-Raybould? We don't know.*_

From committee testimony and/or the media, we do know Wilson-Raybould was shuffled from Justice a few short weeks after her last conversations on SNC with Butts, Katie Telford and Michael Wernick, the clerk of the privy council, who is alleged to have told Wilson-Raybould, "I think [Trudeau] is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that."

Well, getting rid of a recalcitrant attorney general is certainly a way to "get it done," isn't it?

And it doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to equate the final Dec. 19 'no' with the subsequent shuffle, as Wilson-Raybould herself did, despite Trudeau apparently telling her it had nothing to do with it.

That impression probably didn't last long. Especially as Wilson-Raybould later found out, her deputy minister at Justice, Nathalie Drouin, had been told by Wernick to prepare her successor, David Lametti, for a conversation with Trudeau on SNC. Reporting now also confirms Lametti met with senior PMO staff at the January cabinet retreat to discuss SNC. It hardly sounds like the centre was happy with the status quo.

Was Wilson-Raybould, as veterans affairs minister, aware her oft-challenged decision on SNC was about to be revisited and reversed? Is that why the first Globe story appeared? Until Wilson-Raybould is granted permission to speak about that period of time, we won't know. _*(But I suspect another exclusive might soon appear in the Globe and Mail should Trudeau choose to keep her under wraps.)*_

What light can Butts shine on this period? What light could Telford? Until they both speak - until they all speak - nothing we've yet heard can be placed in its proper context. Until they all speak it looks like a cover-up, and not trust in a transparent process.

It's simply not good enough for Trudeau to blather on about jobs and dismiss Wilson-Raybould's "characterization" without rounding out the picture himself. _*It's only a fraction of the story; she has played only the cards he's allowed her to play.*_

It's time for Trudeau to let everyone put their cards on the table.

_*The justice committee should begin by inviting everyone named in Wilson-Raybould's testimony. And then they should invite the former attorney general back to speak freely about her time at veterans affairs and her resignation from that portfolio.*_

Until Trudeau does that, _*anything that comes out of his mouth is a PR exercise meant to obscure the truth*_.

Edited to add further commentary in my opening reply to Haggis.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Mar 2019)

http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/e577e6a7-4ba9-450a-848a-fa83f5c2d548__7C___0.html?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=Internal+Share&utm_content=Screen

Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse

TRUDEAU ET LE « JODYGATE »

Short Form:

English Canadian media colleagues are working themselves into a lather because politicians discuss politics.

Trudeau's fundamental problem is that he appointed a rookie to an important position "because 2016".

Move along folks nothing to see here.

Oh, and by the way, we can continue to disregard Alberta and their "oleoducs".  They're just reverting back to their conservative roots.

It's hard not to think that Hugh MacLennan is still worth a read.

PS.  This will all blow over because Canadians will be voting on values ..... and given a choice between conservative and liberal values they won't choose conservatives.  per Mme Gagnon.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Mar 2019)

> Will the justice committee be hearing from Trudeau? No. How about Katie Telford? No. Bill Morneau? No. Ben Chin? No. Mathieu Bouchard? No. Elder Marques? No. Jessica Prince? No. Amy Archer? Sadly, she's a 'no,' too.
> 
> You'll note the above list doesn't include Gerry Butts, the Prime Minister's (former?) right-hand man, who yesterday tweeted out a letter to justice committee chair Anthony Housefather requesting an appearance. Butts will now appear on March 6, pending the sorting of some legal advice.
> 
> But why does Butts - who people jokingly (?) call Prime Minister Butts - get to appear, but not any of the other people accused of inappropriate behaviour in Wilson-Raybould's testimony?



Because they're guilty and the Liberals think Canadians are stupid, I'd say.


----------



## FJAG (2 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/e577e6a7-4ba9-450a-848a-fa83f5c2d548__7C___0.html?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=Internal+Share&utm_content=Screen
> 
> Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse
> 
> ...



I thought that your summary was a bit strident until I read the actual article and found that you were actually very reserved in your interpretation. Gagnon's article drips with sarcasm and condescension. I don't think she has the mood of the country right on this, especially her view of Ontario:



> But in Ontario, as the Ford government gets out of hand, the Liberals have a good chance of doing well, because they have strong roots there.



Ontario (and the west) generally considers Liberal governments as self-serving and Quebec toadies but from time to time they get concerned that PCs are so secretive, authoritarian, draconian (pick your adjective) that they forget just how crooked the Liberals really are. Not so now. The true face of the extent to which Liberals will go to favour their Quebec base and the extent to which they will go to protect their self interest there is on wide open display. It's no small thing that they've thrown an aboriginal woman under the bus in the process.

My guess is that the Liberal's "strong roots" in Ontario will flee to the NDP and to a lesser extent to the Conservatives or simply not show up to vote.

 :2c:


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Mar 2019)

>1. A central assumption in Wilson-Raybould's testimony is that given the same facts, any ethical attorney general would have come to the same conclusion and refused to use his or her discretion to overturn the public prosecutor's decision to pursue a criminal trial against SNC-Lavalin. But is that really the case?

But we don't have "the same facts".  We have heavily inflected facts, not the least because of all the "information" introduced to try and sway the decision made based on "the same facts" that were available at the time.  Any new conclusion/exercise of discretion would be tainted by all that has happened since the decision was made.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Mar 2019)

I keep repeating, hopefully people now believe: The Liberals do what's best for the LPC, not what's best Canada.

Why doesn't a journalists ask the Liberals that if they wanted to save 9,000 jobs, why didn't they do anything for Alberta or, for that matter Sears?

A friendly op-ed.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/03/01/snc-lavalin-controversy-just-put-it-to-bed.html

*SNC-Lavalin controversy? Just put it to bed* - By HEATHER MALLICK - Star Columnist -  March 1, 2019


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Mar 2019)

If the new AG directs the DPP to issue a DPA, then this will only confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right.

Hint: Hamlet a1 s4.


----------



## YZT580 (2 Mar 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If the new AG directs the DPP to issue a DPA, then this will only confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right.
> 
> Hint: Hamlet a1 s4.


or maybe PT. Barnum.  Something about our birthrate and suckers


----------



## Haggis (2 Mar 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If When the new AG directs the DPP to issue a DPA, then this will only confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right.



FTFY.  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Mar 2019)

I may be becoming pollyanna-like in my old age, but I cannot see what kind of political calculation would lead the Liberals to override the DPP, leading as it would to the conclusion there is one law for their friends and another for everybody else.


----------



## Kat Stevens (2 Mar 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I may be becoming pollyanna-like in my old age, but I cannot see what kind of political calculation would lead the Liberals to override the DPP, leading as it would to the conclusion there is one law for their friends and another for everybody else.



I think that ship already sailed, sadly.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Mar 2019)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I may be becoming pollyanna-like in my old age, but I cannot see what kind of political calculation would lead the Liberals to override the DPP, leading as it would to the conclusion there is one law for their friends and another for everybody else.



I think you're right OS.

They won't over ride the DPP.

They will just declare that a conviction shouldn't bar a company from dealing with the Government.  After all that law wasn't a real law.  It was only a Harper law brought in in 2015.  A legality.   It just doesn't matter  ;D



> Liberals want ‘flexibility’ on federal integrity rules — which could help SNC-Lavalin
> By Andy Blatchford and Jim Bronskill	The Canadian Press
> 
> OTTAWA — *Canada’s minister in charge of procurement says the Trudeau government wants the federal regime for dealing with companies that have integrity problems to be more flexible *— a change that could help beleaguered SNC-Lavalin.
> ...



https://globalnews.ca/news/5010714/liberals-inegrity-snc-lavalin/


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Mar 2019)

And by the way - based on the way appointments happen in this country - are we really any better off with an "independent" Attorney-General or an "independent" "registrar of ineligibility and suspension"?


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Mar 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If the new AG directs the DPP to issue a DPA, then this will only confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right.
> 
> Hint: Hamlet a1 s4.



I realize that I didn't use enough acronyms. What I meant to say was:

If the PMO asks the new AG to direct the DPP to issue a DPA in favour of SNC, then this will only vindicate JWR and confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right, and that the LPC is not to be trusted.


----------



## Haggis (2 Mar 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> If the PMO asks the new AG to direct the DPP to issue a DPA in favour of SNC, then this will only vindicate JWR and confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right, and that the LPC is not to be trusted.



Except that the Liberals (the "Government") will spin it in such a way as to illustrate that JWR was wrong, the influence upon her was to encourage her to right that wrong and, when she erroneously refused, she had to be disciplined.  The PM, PMO and PCO did the right thing and they should be trusted in October to do the right thing again.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (2 Mar 2019)

And proving yet again that for the Libs, arms-Length relationship rules are _*more honour'd in the breach than the observance*_.

 :nana:


----------



## Loachman (2 Mar 2019)

Trudeau talks about Steven Harper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpxslXGGqEw


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Mar 2019)

If "rules" are to mean anything, SNC can't be granted a DPA.  SNC has to be an example to all other corporations - a DPA is a possibility, but do not take it for granted.  If SNC gets a DPA, it looks like a big corporation getting a sweet deal it lobbied for itself.  And, any corporation in a similar predicament in future will ask (very publicly, so that the voters in its area of influence understand) "why them and not us"?  And, politically that latter question will be interpreted as "why QC and not [somewhere-not-QC]?"


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Mar 2019)

Just so we get this straight, while SNC's headquarter is in Montreal, there are more SNC employees working in the other provinces than in the province of Quebec. In fact there are almost as many working out of Toronto as there are in Montreal.

And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.


----------



## Journeyman (3 Mar 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just so we get this straight, while SNC's headquarter is in Montreal, there are more SNC employees working in the other provinces than in the province of Quebec. In fact there are almost as many working out of Toronto as there are in Montreal.
> 
> And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.


If you're hoping to garner sympathy for SNC by appealing to our love of _Toronto_….

       :rofl:


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Mar 2019)

Not at all.

I just suspected that many a people in here that are making this a "Quebec" privilege issue may be from TO the good (since bashing anything Montreal they can't steal is in their DNA) and that just perhaps they didn't recognize the they were shooting themselves in the foot at the same time.

 ;D


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Mar 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Not at all.
> 
> I just suspected that many a people in here that are making this a "Quebec" privilege issue may be from TO the good (since bashing anything Montreal they can't steal is in their DNA) and that just perhaps they didn't recognize the they were shooting themselves in the foot at the same time.
> 
> ;D



Actually, if JWR is to be believed, Trudeau and Company made it a Quebec issue. If her testimony is correct, he is the one who was concerned about the electoral ramifications for the Liberals, in Quebec, specifically.

I recognize that SNC has employees everwhere in Canada. I also recognize that they are hardly the only engineering firm in Canada and that if something bad happens to them, their bones will get picked over by their competitors and life will go on....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (3 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Actually, if JWR is to be believed, Trudeau and Company made it a Quebec issue. If her testimony is correct, he is the one who was concerned about the electoral ramifications for the Liberals, in Quebec, specifically.
> 
> I recognize that SNC has employees everwhere in Canada. I also recognize that they are hardly the only engineering firm in Canada and that if something bad happens to them, their bones will get picked over by their competitors and life will go on....



That's for sure. And it completely belies the "economic consequences" argument.


----------



## Loachman (3 Mar 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.



Which can be blamed on Liberals.

Win!!!


----------



## Haggis (3 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> *Actually, if JWR is to be believed,* Trudeau and Company made it a Quebec issue. *If her testimony is correct, *he is the one who was concerned about the electoral ramifications for the Liberals, in Quebec, specifically.



Right there is, what I believe, the Liberal's "vital ground".  They will have to undermine her credibility, shred her account of events and prove her wrong.  That, again, is why I believe a DPA will be forthcoming.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (3 Mar 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Which can be blamed on Liberals.
> 
> Win!!!



Sorry,...still gotta kick Mike Harris's crew in the nuts for anything 407 related.   Though in all fairness, it would still be a simple 2 lane highway had it remained in the hands of the Ontario Govt, as they siphoned off the profits for important things like 'art' nights, rubber ducks, etc....


----------



## Loachman (3 Mar 2019)

I'm talking about today, not back then.

If the Bob Rae Toll Way gets shut down because SNC-Lavalin collapses, that's on Trudeau's actions, not Mike Harris.

Today's media sampling begins:

https://www.wellandtribune.ca/news-story/9202509-strategists-weigh-in-on-snc-lavalin-affair-i-don-t-think-public-opinion-is-set-on-this-/

Strategists weigh in on SNC-Lavalin affair: "I don't think public opinion is set on this'

News 05:56 PM by Robert Cribb

The political bombshell launched Wednesday by Jody Wilson-Raybould created new possibilities and pitfalls in the ramp-up to a federal election, say senior strategists.

"No one has seen anything like it," said Conservative strategist Jaime Watt. "The question is what does everybody do now?"

For the Tories, the gift of Liberal scandal delivered by the then attorney-general's allegations of political interference against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his staff prompted a swift call by Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer for Trudeau's resignation. Wilson-Raybould told a Commons committee about "sustained" efforts to persuade her to overrule the public prosecutions director and offer to mediate criminal charges against the giant Quebec firm SNC-Lavalin.

Was Scheer's call a wise move?

"It does sound a bit shrill and predictable," says Watt. "I think they pulled the alarm.

"He'll have to backfill with highly specific reasons and explanations for why that is the appropriate remedy ... I think he's going to have to come out with a much more lawyerly attack on the prime minister's behaviour."

There remains much unknown about what happened - and a long way to go before the October election date - for any certainty on how much Wednesday's bombshell will reshape Ottawa's political landscape. With only one side of the story told in detail so far, the narrative is still in flux and possibilities for new revelations very much in play, says Watt.

"I don't think public opinion is set on this. There presumably are other shoes to drop that we can't see right now."

So Scheer's challenge, says Watt, is keeping momentum and turning the rather arcane rule-of-law subtleties of attorney-general independence into an election issue for Canadians focused on jobs, health care and raising their children.

"We've seen lots of shooting stars where the parliamentary press gallery is running around saying this government is going down. They light up and disappear. Mr. Scheer has got to keep the focus on this. He has to use this to show the prime minister is not who you thought he was. That's where this can be enterprise-threatening."

Rather than demanding the prime minister's head, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh called for a public inquiry "that would have independence to assess the truth."

Solid strategy, assesses Robin V. Sears, a longtime NDP strategist who runs Earnscliffe Strategy Group in Ottawa.

"The problem with Mr. Scheer's response is where does he go from here? Should Trudeau jump off a cliff? Jagmeet and his advisers were smart because they've now got a vehicle in which they can keep dropping evidence to argue for a public inquiry step by step."

Trudeau's response to Wilson-Raybould's forensic, detailed deconstruction of meetings and conversations have amounted to sound-bite dismissals made during other announcements. That decision not to address any of the substantive allegations in similar fashion is a curiosity, says Sears.

"A little contrition would have gone a long way. I think there's just a sense of chaos around the centre of the government ... I don't get the sense there's a strategic plan being executed."

And consider, he says, that it was all easily avoided.

"It was entirely predictable that when they dumped Jody, she would seek revenge. Had anyone given any thought to that? Obviously not. This is really amateurish communications management."

So what of the Liberal fortunes?

"I don't know how the story goes away for a long time," says Penny Collenette, a former Liberal organizer and law professor at the University of Ottawa. "I think people really want the truth. If there's two truths, then Canadians are smart. They'll figure it out. They'll decide. Everybody needs to know what happened and what went on."

For her part, Collenette called Wilson-Raybould's testimony "very credible, very honest. The detail is what made her very believable."

But any notions that Wilson-Raybould's political flame throwing could bring down the government are dramatically premature, political watchers agree.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5016091/scheer-alternative-facts-snc-lavalin/

March 2, 2019 8:11 pm

Scheer blasts Liberals' "alternative facts' on SNC-Lavalin story

By Kerri Breen

<snip>

While Justin Trudeau has said he disagrees unequivocally with his former justice minister's version of events, he has also made comments suggesting he believes the difference between his story and hers comes down to perspective.

<snip>

"There are disagreements in perspective on this, but I can reassure Canadians that we were doing our job and we were doing it in a way that respects and defends our institutions."

The same day, Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland told CBC radio that Wilson-Raybould spoke "her truth" but added that she believes the prime minister would never apply "improper pressure."

On the Roy Green Show on Saturday, pollster Darrell Bricker said Trudeau's public comments on the SNC-Lavalin case have not helped.

_*"So far, the prime minister has done nothing to quell the problems that he has," said Bricker, Global CEO of Public Affairs for Ipsos. "In fact, every time he stands in front of the camera he seems to make it worse."

He said Trudeau will have a difficult time coming back from the allegations in the months before the October election, though the party does have time to present a compelling case to Canadians  -  if it has one.

"Once those kinds of things happen, this is going to dog them all the way through to the election campaign. And governments that are dogged by this kind of thing have a very difficult time convincing Canadians that they actually deserve another term," he said.*_

<snip>

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/macdougall-trudeau-beware-this-snc-mess-will-resonate-with-canadians

MacDougall: SNC scandal is leaving a mark voters will remember

Andrew MacDougall Updated: March 2, 2019

Following the twists and turns of the SNC-Lavalin drama, it's easy to miss the real scandal, one that will do the most damage if it fully registers. Forget the machinations of Trudeau v. Jody Wilson-Raybould, including her explosive testimony; it's SNC v. the system that will most anger "ordinary" Canadians. How is one company seemingly able to bend a government to its will?

Trudeau's government, you'll remember, was elected on a pledge to help the middle class. It promised to be open, transparent and accountable. It also promised to be proudly feminist. The SNC scandal is acid to all of those brands.

Now there might indeed be a bushel of middle-class people working for SNC in the politically important province of Quebec, but none of them would be able to bend the ear of the Trudeau government to the degree done here. Facing potential economic ruin because of the foreign bribery charges being pursued in Canadian courts, SNC managed to effect a change to Canadian law to allow for the remediation agreements that would allow it to sidestep a conviction and continue receiving lucrative federal government contracts. Not satisfied with these efforts, SNC has also reportedly been chipping away at the federal rules banning convicted companies from receiving federal work. If SNC has its way, companies won't automatically face a 10-year ban for their criminal behaviour.

The whole episode is reminiscent of the way things were before Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper took the big money out of Canadian politics, eliminating corporate and union donations and pushing individual contributions to levels where they could not credibly be perceived as buying influence. Anyone wondering why those changes were made need only look at the scandal now unfolding.

Now there might indeed be a bushel of middle-class people working for SNC in the politically important province of Quebec, but none of them would be able to bend the ear of the Trudeau government to the degree done here. Facing potential economic ruin because of the foreign bribery charges being pursued in Canadian courts, SNC managed to effect a change to Canadian law to allow for the remediation agreements that would allow it to sidestep a conviction and continue receiving lucrative federal government contracts. Not satisfied with these efforts, SNC has also reportedly been chipping away at the federal rules banning convicted companies from receiving federal work. If SNC has its way, companies won't automatically face a 10-year ban for their criminal behaviour.

The whole episode is reminiscent of the way things were before Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper took the big money out of Canadian politics, eliminating corporate and union donations and pushing individual contributions to levels where they could not credibly be perceived as buying influence. Anyone wondering why those changes were made need only look at the scandal now unfolding.

Trudeau has frustrated disclosure at every opportunity. Instead of detailing his office's interactions with Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau dismissed the story as "false" and ordered the Liberals on the House of Commons' Justice Committee to circumscribe its witness list to exclude anyone who might know anything about it. (Wilson-Raybould was, obviously, eventually allowed to appear.) Even the departure of Gerry Butts, Trudeau's top aide, came and went without any disclosure. He, too, will now appear at committee, but the others involved will not.

And while Trudeau and his office were refusing to be straight with Canadians, they were busy trying to bury Wilson-Raybould on and off the record. Dismissing Wilson-Raybould as "difficult" and "Jody-centric" is a straight-up insult to the feminism Trudeau has tried to preach since the swearing in of his first gender-balanced cabinet. When push came to shove, Trudeau appears to have shoved Wilson-Raybould out of the way instead of accepting her principled refusal to play ball on SNC.

The whole mess stinks. It's a dark cloud that couldn't be further from Trudeau's 2015 pledge of sunny ways. And being sold a false bill of goods is precisely the kind of thing Canadians tend to notice come election time.

<snip>

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/marin-time-for-michael-wernick-to-walk-away-with-cushy-pension

MARIN: Time for Michael Wernick to walk away with cushy pension

Andre Marin Published: March 2, 2019

<snip>

Back in Canada, we had an assortment of "fixers" from the Prime Minister on down, including an assortment of political hoodlums working for the Prime Minister bullying our former AG to "find a solution" to save SNC-Lavalin from prosecution.

"Finding a solution" was code word used over and over by Trudeau and his fixers to overturn the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

<snip>

So, who is expected, in our parliamentary democracy, to steer key politicians and their aides from overstepping their boundaries? Step forward Michael Wernick, the top civil servant who is also deputy minister to Trudeau, Clerk of the Privy Council and head of the public service.

And Wernick failed spectacularly in that job. He let himself be co-opted by powerful Liberals. Wernick allowed partisan politics to seep into the public service. He testified a few weeks back before the Justice Committee.

After entertaining us with all types of non sequiturs about an apocalyptical future society involving people getting shot during an election and praising a Liberal government minister, which had nothing to do with SNC-Lavalin, he actually confirmed that pressure was exerted by the Prime Minister's staff and him for months after being told by Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould that she would not back down from the prosecution.

Wilson-Raybould filled the narrative this past week.

She said she had several detailed meetings and conversations with Wernick, including one on Sept. 17 on an unrelated issue where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau immediately brought up the SNC-Lavalin case pressuring her to go for a deferred prosecution agreement. She added: "Then, to my surprise, the Clerk started to make the case for the need to have a DPA."

Trudeau said there was a provincial election in Quebec and that's where he had his seat. Wilson-Raybould pushed back asking whether he was interfering politically with her role as Attorney General.

Trudeau's code language: "No, no, no, we just need to find a solution.

Months later, on Dec. 19, Wernick was at it again trying to "find a solution" calling Wilson-Raybould to inform her that Trudeau was "quite determined, quite firm."

"He said: "I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another,'" she said.

<snip>

How is Wernick's role in all of this any different from the ten other politicians and their staffers who met, emailed and texted Wilson-Raybould to change her course of action over several months? The use of code language allowed for plausible deniability. Now the bunch of eleven can say they didn't use undue pressure, they were only trying to "find a solution" to a problem and save jobs.

<snip>

Wernick should have been the adult in the room. He aided and abetted the PMO in intimidating Wilson-Raybould to change her mind. Time to retire or be retired.

At least with 38 years of public service, he'll have a nice cushy pension and won't have to worry about sleeping on a cold prison cot.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/warren-the-liberals-conservatives-and-media-have-all-failed-on-this-mess#comments

WARREN: Liberals, Conservatives and media all failed on this mess

Jim Warren	

Published: March 2, 2019

<snip>

I have never seen so many smart people doing their impressions of stupid people. _*You know it is a bad week in Ottawa when Jagmeet Singh is the lone shining star.*_

First the government: This has been a communications disaster. I understand that this is an act of political fratricide and it's hard to figure out how to avoid being shot when the shooting is coming from within your own trench. But SNC-Lavalin would be an issue instead of a scandal if the PMO had only come out with the truth the moment they were asked about the issue.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who leaked the story.

The Liberal explanation keeps changing. Their story has been confusing and, at times, unbelievable. Trudeau should have told his complete side of the story first and taken the initiative. And now the story continues to drag out because the government fails to be consistent and complete in its account.

It's the classic case of death by a thousand cuts.

While the PMO has floundered, the supporting cast has been worse. The Chair of Justice Committee and the Liberal committee members let their party down. Their performance was inept. All cabinet ministers need to be fighting like it is for their political lives. Instead, it's too little, too late.

This brings us to Andrew Scheer, who looks like he is running for high school president instead of prime minister. Calling for Trudeau's resignation was as equally inept as the Liberals' performance.

Napoleon said, "Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake." Scheer apparently wants to get rid of the gift that keeps on giving.

Don't you want this drama to keep going on as long as possible? He should be calling for procedures that will drag this out even longer. Many Conservatives I spoke to this week were disappointed with Scheer's performance.

Remarkably, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh had the best week of the federal party leaders. Perhaps because he is also a lawyer, he seemed knowledgeable and measured in his response. He looked smart by calling for a national inquiry, his second victory of the week after winning his byelection.

<snip>


----------



## Loachman (3 Mar 2019)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/scheer-open-to-the-idea-of-splitting-justice-attorney-general-roles-if-pm-1.4319286

Scheer 'open' to the idea of splitting justice, attorney general roles if PM

Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer

Published Sunday, March 3, 2019 7:00AM EST 

<snip>

During her committee appearance, Wilson-Raybould suggested that separating these roles could be a way to keep future attorneys general removed from the political machinations that the justice minister is privy to.

"There has always been a different aspect of that role within the Canadian cabinet going back over 150 years now. So it's not just as if a minister executed a program delivery improperly or wasn't the best communicator it was in her capacity as the chief legal officer of this country. She determined that would be inappropriate to intervene in an independent criminal court case and she lost her job because of that," Scheer said.

<snip>

Scheer also said his caucus will continue to call for Trudeau to join the slowly-growing witness list at the committee.

_*"Absolutely he needs to, under oath, on the record with the ability to have that kind of back and forth. We've seen in question period, he doesn't answer your questions… he needs to sit there and explain," Scheer said.*_

One unanswered question is Wilson-Raybould's future in caucus. Trudeau has said that he is still undecided if she has a place among the Liberal benches.

For her part, Wilson-Raybould says she will continue to serve the constituents of Vancouver-Granville, B.C. "as a Liberal Member of Parliament."

Asked about this, Goodale said on CTV's Question Period that he hopes "that there can be some kind of reconciliation," but doesn't know if that'll be possible after she wouldn't say if she still has confidence in Trudeau.

"This has obviously been a very sad and difficult and painful experience, I'm sure on all sides, it has not been pleasant when you have these kinds of disputes and arguments and very intense feelings," Goodale said.

"I would hope that there can be some kind of reconciliation ... A caucus depends on internal cohesion and belief in one another and trust and confidence ... And if things are going to be repaired it's going to take an awful lot of hard work, whether that can be done or not, I don't know," Goodale said.

In a separate interview on CTV's Question Period, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said that she knows that Wilson-Raybould still has support within the Liberal caucus.

"Particularly a lot of women in the Liberal caucus who are #standwithjody," May said. "It is awkward for the prime minister for sure."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ontario-liberal-mp-celina-caesar-chavannes-not-running-in-october-election-1.5040589

Ontario Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes not running in October election

Whitby MP says her decision is not related to Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony

CBC News Posted: Mar 02, 2019 3:33 PM ET

Ontario Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes announced Saturday she would not be seeking re-election this year. 

In a statement posted to Twitter, the member for Whitby, Ont., explained she had informed the prime minister and party whip of her "tremendously difficult" decision on Feb. 12.

She also stressed that her choice wasn't related to the ongoing SNC-Lavalin affair and the testimony of her caucus colleague Jody Wilson-Raybould, who this week described interference by the prime minister and high-level government officials over her decision not to offer a deferred prosecution deal to the Quebec company.

She added she had immense respect for the former justice minister and attorney general and that would never change. The MP had commented several times on Twitter in support of Wilson-Raybould during the unfolding events surrounding her resignation from cabinet.

"Factors influencing this decision started long before Feb.12," the statement says. "It is a personal decision, based on a number of factors."

Caesar-Chavannes said her mind had been made up for months, dating back to before she decided not to continue as a parliamentary secretary in September. 

<snip>

She joins Mark Eyking, Bill Casey, Colin Fraser, TJ Harvey and Scott Brison on the list of Liberal MPs choosing not to run again in October's general election.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/trudeaus-lineup-of-willing-op-ed-writers-points-to-larger-problem-of-media-manipulation/

Trudeau's lineup of willing op-ed writers points to larger problem of media manipulation

by Graeme Gordon

One of the most revelatory bombshells from former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould's candid and damaging testimony was when she alleged that the Prime Minister's chief of staff Katie Telford offered to get the minister positive press if she were to follow the Trudeau government's wishes.

According to Wilson-Raybould, Telford told her chief of staff that the Prime Minister's Office could "lineup all kinds of people to write op-eds" to defend her for allowing SNC-Lavalin get off virtually scot-free for bribery charges. The alleged bribery included allegedly spending nearly $2 million on parties and prostitutes for deceased Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son's visit to Canada.

Telford's alleged statement rankled many in the mainstream media. The Toronto Star's public editor Kathy English was indignant in a column where she said it is "disturbing and laughable" that Trudeau's chief of staff allegedly suggested newspapers like the Toronto Star have what English inferred as a "passive process of publishing to appease special interests."

<snip>

And who can forget former CBC national defence journalist James Cudmore who - shortly after former Royal Canadian Navy's Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was thrown under the bus - got a job working for Liberal defence minister Harjit Sajjan?

There are nearly a dozen journalists that come to mind who jumped for government flack jobs dangled to them once Trudeau assumed power. CBC itself had fawning coverage of Trudeau last election cycle because - as I've heard from sources - some at the public broadcaster saw him as their saviour, promising, and delivering, hundreds of millions in additional funding.  

Other leftist journalists need no incentive to do the PMO's bidding. They're true believers that will look for any right-wing extremist who is politically active and try their best to tie them to the Conservative party of Canada (sometimes legitimately). These same journalists, however, have failed to file any reports on extremists from the left, many of whom are also politically active and affiliated with the NDP or Liberals.

When Gerald Butts resigned, some journalists expressed sadness publicly (others were tactful enough to keep it private). It was quite revealing of just how exceptional Trudeau's best friend and principal secretary was at his job in grooming and managing journalists, some even admitting their overall general agreement with the government and finding it hard to see Trudeau losing the plot.  

And if journalists honestly think that a bailout of the legacy media will not have a net effect on the industry that's positive for the Trudeau government, their benefactor, they need to give their heads a shake.

Money always has an influential effect, whether intended or not, and $595 million is a lot of influence. At the very least it will help hinder the ability of less predictable and less controllable leaner and meaner startups, not tamed by corporate culture, from thriving in their absence, keeping media ownership consolidated in a few gatekeepers' hands.

At a pub last week, a friend in banking bluntly told me journalists are simply tools or conduits for powerful people to sell their agenda or message to the masses. After initially feeling personally affronted, I couldn't really disagree. As a regular contributor and listener to media criticism news outlet CANADALAND, over the past two years too many examples of journalists as tools for powerful people came to mind (a few of which I've recounted for you above).  

One of the fundamental jobs of the PMO is to control messaging in the media. So, like the sustained pressure put on Wilson-Raybould, the Trudeau government (and powerful people generally, e.g. Michael Bryant) has a multitude of sophisticated levers and buttons it can pull and push to wholly manipulate narratives in this country. It's laughable and disturbing to suggest and think otherwise.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-justin-trudeau-just-wasnt-ready

Lorrie Goldstein	

Published: March 2, 2019

<snip>

We're learning that electing a prime minister who would not have become prime minister, given the thinness of his resume, were his last name not "Trudeau," has real-world consequences.

This as we listen to his implausible explanations for removing Jody Wilson-Raybould as Canada's attorney general change by the hour, exposing the real reason - that she has political ethics and gravitas that he does not.

The Liberal party that considers itself Canada's natural governing party is in disarray under his leadership, its cabinet ministers and MPs reduced to uttering gibberish as they try to defend Trudeau's indefensible actions in the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Because there's no defence for a prime minister who - as Raybould's calmly delivered but devastating four hours of testimony at the Commons justice committee revealed last week - puts his own partisan political interests and those of his party, above the national interest.

Above the interests of all Canadians in having a prime minister and a government that understands the importance of such basic concepts as prosecutorial independence and the rule of law.

<snip>

Because beyond the narrow confines of the Ottawa political-media bubble, the corrosive effect of more than three years of Trudeau's policies continues to undermine the body politic.

For example, the real-world consequences of having our national energy policy influenced by Gerald Butts, Trudeau's recently resigned principal secretary, close friend and most powerful aide, who _*idiotically campaigned for a carbon free energy industry by 2050 in his last job as head of the World Wildlife Fund Canada*_.

A poll released Friday by Angus Reid Institute shows the new hotbed of popular support for separation in Canada is Alberta, not Quebec.

It found 50% of Albertans would support secession from Canada compared to an October 2016 poll showing 82% of Quebecers had no desire to revisit the issue of sovereignty any time soon.

<snip>

While support for separation in Alberta is not yet as great a threat to Canadian unity as the Quebec separatist movement in its heyday, according to Reid, it's hardly surprising separatist sentiment is growing in a province where Trudeau's promise that carbon taxes would give Alberta the "social licence" to build pipelines, has been an abject failure.

On a related front, Statistics Canada reported Friday that an unexpectedly severe slowdown in Canada's economic growth in the final quarter of 2018 will likely continue and spread this year.

To be fair, federal policies are only one factor that impacts our economy. There are many others the government can't control.

That said, and contrary to the world according to Justin Trudeau, we now know that deficits don't balance themselves and growing the economy "from the heart outwards" is election rhetoric, not an economic plan.

Nice hair, though.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Mar 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> ... One unanswered question is Wilson-Raybould's future in caucus. Trudeau has said that he is still undecided if she has a place among the Liberal benches.
> 
> For her part, Wilson-Raybould says she will continue to serve the constituents of Vancouver-Granville, B.C. "as a Liberal Member of Parliament." ...


On this, haven't read/heard this elsewhere, but she's told the Vancouver Province ...


> ... she is staying the Liberal caucus and *plans to run for re-election as a Liberal in October*.
> 
> “I was confirmed as the Liberal Party of Canada candidate for Vancouver Granville last year,” she told me ...


op:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Mar 2019)

I dont think its about jobs or politics or anything else like that.

It think all boils down to greed and influence. Way too many high ranking liberals are involved with SNC. Just like they are with Bombardier and Power Corp. The Laurentien Elites if you will.

There's too much face and money to lose in individual portfolios to let SNC fail.

Nothing to do with Canada and all to do with bank accounts.

 :2c:


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Mar 2019)

>According to Wilson-Raybould, Telford told her chief of staff that the Prime Minister's Office could "lineup all kinds of people to write op-eds" 

>Telford's alleged statement rankled many in the mainstream media. 

It's easy to see how it works.  

1. "Respected" people - not necessarily journalists - write the op-eds.  

2. The leading wave of "respected" opinion provides the pretext for the army of dupes reporters described by Ben Rhodes* to follow comfortably along where their political inclinations lie.

The institutional press are angry and upset because they know that both points are highly plausible, which means that many reporters basically dance to music provided by unelected political operatives.  Some have to confront the uncomfortable truth that they are or have been one of the puppets.

*"they literally know nothing"


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Mar 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.



SNC only owns a 1/6 minority...along for the ride, Spanish company Cintra SPa owns the greatest portion (45%) followed by CPP (40%).  The 407 will still be able to charge a king’s ransom, no matter where the smallest sharelholder’s HQ ends up...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Mar 2019)

SNC already knows the outcome of any case against them, they should have folded the company and the bits to shell companies that could reform under a new name, sweep the board clean and start fresh.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Mar 2019)

>Just so we get this straight, while SNC's headquarter is in Montreal, there are more SNC employees working in the other provinces than in the province of Quebec. In fact there are almost as many working out of Toronto as there are in Montreal.

The public perception does not always match the truth.  Right now, from what I read online, I suppose the issue is perceived as one framed around the interests of the LPC and QC.


----------



## Good2Golf (3 Mar 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Just so we get this straight, while SNC's headquarter is in Montreal, there are more SNC employees working in the other provinces than in the province of Quebec. In fact there are almost as many working out of Toronto as there are in Montreal.



Not relevant.  The key factors are that SNC leadership is in Montreal and that the company is incorporated in Quebec, no matter the distribution of the worker bees in the rest of Canada and globally.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> On this, haven't read/heard this elsewhere, but she's told the Vancouver Province ...op:



Another (huge) challenge by JWR to feminist Trudeau/LPC. Lets see how he replies to the media next week when asked if he is going to authorize JWR to run for re election as a Liberal in the Oct general. Should be interesting.


----------



## Loachman (3 Mar 2019)

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-michael-wernicks-the-last-person-who-should-be-monitoring-election-fairness://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/marin-time-for-michael-wernick-to-walk-aw

GUNTER: Michael Wernick's the last person who should be monitoring election fairness

Lorne Gunter	

Published: March 1, 2019

I am against the federal government's Critical Election Incident Public Protocol (CEIPP) in principle. But given the up-to-his-eyeballs involvement of Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick in the prime minister's efforts to pressure former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould into ending the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, I now have very practical objections to the CEIPP, too.

In early February, Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould announced that five senior civil servants will monitor the Internet for any sign of foreign meddling during this fall's federal election.

Gould insisted this was not about "refereeing the election." Rather, the CEIPP was about "alerting Canadians of an incident that jeopardizes their rights to a free and fair election."

Okay, some giant hack of voting results that changed the outcome in several ridings might qualify, but Gould instead said the Liberals' main concern was stopping "fake news" and "orchestrated disinformation campaigns."

That's a whole different kettle of fish. That sounds like an attempt to monitor the issues voters can and cannot see during an election.

That's not a conspiratorial fear on my part. Canadian law already makes it very difficult for any group other than registered political parties to advertise their views during a campaign. Since the internet offers these "third parties" a powerful new way to get around the politicians' advertising monopoly, is it that hard to believe the government would try to regulate Internet and social media in the name of "fairness" and use "fake news" as their excuse?

The key to the CEIPP's objectivity, then, is who sits on it. And that is where my practical concern comes in.

I was already worried about the objectivity of Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick before Wilson-Raybould's testimony this week at the Commons Justice committee.

In his own testimony last week, Wernick exclaimed that he was "deeply concerned about my country now, its politics, and where it's headed."

<snip>

And if he cannot distinguish between frustrated people letting off steam by using exaggeration and real conspirators plotting to commit crimes, then Wernick has no business being named as one of the five impartial monitors of our upcoming federal campaign.

<snip>

Wernick is supposed to be entirely non-partisan. Entirely. Given his entanglement in the SNC affair, he probably shouldn't keep his main job, but he definitely can't keep his post as an impartial monitor of this fall's campaign.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeaus-bad-week-just-got-worse

LILLEY: Trudeau's bad week just got worse

Brian Lilley

Published: March 1, 2019

Canadians are losing faith in his government, China is calling out Canada for not following the rule of law and the Mounties are reviewing a request to investigate wrongdoing in the prime minister's office.

The week did not end well for Justin Trudeau.

A poll released late Friday by Public Square Research shows that over the last two weeks Canadians have begun shifting their views on the prime minister and his government over the handling of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

The polling firm conducted two different online surveys, one on Feb. 13-14 and one on Feb. 28-March 1.

In the first survey, 73% said Jody Wilson-Raybould was more credible compared to 27% who felt Justin Trudeau was. Two weeks later, 79% said Wilson-Raybould was more credible compared to 21% for Trudeau.

Meanwhile, 73% said they agreed with the statement that "the government should not involve itself if a company gets in trouble with the law in Canada."

<snip>

Can there be any question that the government, from the PM to his top officials, were interfering politically in a criminal trial?

In this case, they were trying to help a favoured company avoid criminal prosecution, there are also allegations that top officials have been involved in helping to make sure that criminal trial against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman goes ahead.

None of this is good for the government.

<snip>

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/exclusive-jody-wilson-raybould-overwhelmed-grateful-and-seeking-re-election

Exclusive: Jody Wilson-Raybould 'overwhelmed, grateful' - and seeking re-election

Jody Wilson-Raybould says she has heard from "thousands" of Canadians since her bombshell testimony in Ottawa. And she's ready to run for re-election in the fall.

Mike Smyth Updated: March 2, 2019

Jody Wilson-Raybould says she is "overwhelmed and grateful" about an outpouring of public support since her scorching testimony in the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

And despite a nasty internal backlash after her explosive appearance before the federal justice committee, she has no intention of quitting the Liberal caucus in Ottawa.

"It really has been quite remarkable," Wilson-Raybould said Saturday, in her first public remarks since her bombshell testimony.

"I have heard from thousands of people - neighbours, friends, constituents, as well as people from all across Canada."

The former attorney general said she plans to run for re-election in the fall under the Liberal banner in Vancouver Granville.

"I feel overwhelmed and grateful. In my mind, all I was doing was my job."

<snip>

"Like Canadians everywhere, I just try to do my job the best I can," she said, adding she's been recognized everywhere she goes while messages of support pour in.

"People coming up to me in airports, social media, emails, deliveries to my offices - I'm grateful for all of the support and kind thoughts."

<snip>

Despite the backlash, Wilson-Raybould said she has no intention of leaving the Liberals.

"I was elected as the Liberal member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville and I will continue to serve as such," she said.

Trudeau said last week he had not decided whether Wilson-Raybould will be allowed to remain in the government caucus or to run again for the Liberals.

"I haven't yet had the opportunity to review her entire testimony," Trudeau said. "I will do that before making any further decisions."

But Wilson-Raybould said she's already secured the Liberal nomination for the October election.

"I was confirmed as the Liberal Party of Canada candidate for Vancouver Granville last year," she said.

Despite being at the centre of a raging political storm, Wilson-Raybould said she is feeling upbeat and confident.

"I am doing fine," she said. "The past few weeks have been eventful ones for our country, our system of government, and for myself and family."

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-justin-trudeau-liberals/

How a core member of Team Trudeau became the PM's greatest threat

Jody Wilson-Raybould was once one of Justin Trudeau's star political prospects. Now, a thorn in his side.

by John Geddes Mar 3, 2019

Jody Wilson-Raybould has a way of making an impression. Oddly enough, for a politician, she often makes it in private. There was the day in 2011, back when Wilson-Raybould was heading the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, that she ran into former prime minister Paul Martin. He later said she treated him to a "brilliant exposition" on First Nations issues, which led to Martin talking her up in his Liberal circles. By 2013, newly minted Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau had heard enough to fly to Whitehorse to meet her. Their one-on-one so impressed Trudeau that only a few months later he was showcasing her to Liberals as a star political prospect at a Montreal party convention.

After the Liberals won the 2015 election, Trudeau named Wilson-Raybould his justice minister-among the plum cabinet posts. Yet she would rarely be the centre of attention. She pushed through bills on cannabis legalization, assisted suicide and criminal law reform. She pleaded behind the scenes for a sweeping overhaul of Ottawa's relationship with Indigenous people. Still, her reticent manner didn't fully draw the spotlight-not until, that is, she appeared before the House justice committee on Feb. 27 to deliver testimony on the SNC-Lavalin affair. Suddenly, her restraint was riveting. Her spare rhetoric made every damning word sting.

<snip>

Liberal MPs looked appropriately stricken or studiously nonchalant. In Wilson-Raybould, they face a figure unlike anyone who has occupied centre stage before through a prolonged Canadian political scandal. She posed the gravest threat to the Liberal party in the second Trudeau era-yet her fellow Liberals were taking pains not to cut her adrift. She remained in their caucus-even though Tories and New Democrats praised her as truthful and, of course, fastened on her as their most valuable, visible asset in an election year. She had quit Trudeau's cabinet to serve as a mere backbench Vancouver MP-but now they watched her stature soar.

Several layered factors make Wilson-Raybould unique. In a shady sequence of events involving a tainted company lobbying for a big favour from the government, she seems to have stood up to the powers that be. She did so as one of the top-ranking women in a cabinet famously engineered around gender equity. And she did it having risen higher in the federal government than any Indigenous politician before her. At the core of her persona are her Vancouver Island roots in the villages of her father's Kwakwaka'wakw people. "I come from a long line of matriarchs and I am a truth-teller in accordance with the laws and traditions of our Big House," she told the committee.

<snip>

How would Trudeau fight that? There's no political opposition research playbook for counterpunching against Wilson-Raybould's singular challenge. The Prime Minister stuck to the usually reliable jobs, jobs, jobs tack-that he was only worrying about the fate of SNC-Lavalin employees, almost 9,000 of them across Canada. The problem was, Wilson-Raybould freely allowed that pointing out to her the potential job losses if the company suffered was fine. What wasn't legitimate was trying to inject raw politics into decision-making surrounding a criminal prosecution.

For instance, Wilson-Raybould recounted how, at a meeting she had last Sept. 17 with the Prime Minister, the possibility of SNC-Lavalin pulling its headquarters out of Montreal was raised. Trudeau blurted out that he was an "MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau," referring to his Montreal riding. Meetings and calls to Wilson-Raybould and her staff continued through the fall.

Finally, on Dec. 19, Wernick, Trudeau's deputy minister and the most powerful federal bureaucrat, called her at home. Wilson-Raybould said he told her Trudeau was determined to get SNC-Lavalin its deal. "He said, 'I think he is going to find a way to get it done one way or another,'?" she recalled, adding later, "In my mind, those were veiled threats, and I took them as such."

Events that followed suggest she wasn't wrong to feel threatened. On Jan. 14, in what was expected to be a minor cabinet shuffle, Trudeau demoted Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs.

<snip>

Regular communication? Our colleague? When war breaks out on Parliament Hill, collegiality is usually the first casualty. Clearly, Wilson-Raybould's political relationships are uncommonly durable. Her singular set of political traits make her hard to cast as a plausible villain. But there's another factor. Liberals are reluctant to bid adieu to something she, as much as anyone, embodies.

<snip>

By contrast, among Liberals who never cracked Trudeau's inner circle, a perhaps inevitable they-had-it-coming critique quickly began circulating. Even Butts's not-for-attribution critics, however, don't deny his talent. "I have the greatest respect for his intellect, his strategic instincts when it comes to politics and even policy," said one veteran Liberal strategist who asked not to be named. "But the way he centralized things around himself is exactly why this Jody Wilson-Raybould thing has happened."

<snip>

I missed this one earlier, and was about to skip it entirely as is a few days old in a topic that has evolved so quickly, but, upon beginning to read it, decided to include it. I disagree that Trudeau has "changed", as opposed to "been exposed" and further "exposed himself", albeit only to those who were previously blind:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/justin-trudeau-my-how-youve-changed/

Justin Trudeau, my how you've changed

Andrew MacDougall: Justin Trudeau looks like the un-smart, un-serious man that so many of his political opponents have always insisted he is.

by Andrew MacDougall Feb 28, 2019

Imagine you're Justin Trudeau.

The SNC-Lavalin scandal has been battering your government for weeks. Your story keeps shifting. The usually docile media aren't letting it rest. Even a thousand coordinated tweets about the positive impact of the Canada Child Benefit can't change the channel.

On the contrary, l'affair SNC-now christened LavScam-is picking up steam.

You've been forced to accept the resignation of your good friend and top advisor, Gerry Butts, who showed himself the door despite doing absolutely nothing wrong on SNC. Your boy Buttsy jumped on the SNC grenade to spare others the damage.

Only Butts missed the grenade. Completely.

Even worse, Jody Wilson-Raybould-i.e. the grenade-launcher-is now before the Justice Committee. She's (relatively) free to speak and she is letting loose. And now the shrapnel is everywhere, and everyone is bleeding.

You're bleeding. Your chief of staff is bleeding. Your Quebec advisor is bleeding. Your policy guy is bleeding. Your big-spending, do-nothing finance minister is bleeding. Your finance minister's chief of staff is bleeding. And the "non-partisan" clerk of the Privy Council-i.e. your own personal pick for the post? Well, Michael Wernick is soiled. Comprehensively soiled. And bleeding.

<snip>

You're watching this all go down, and it is devastating. Your government is in peril. You're in peril. You're staring a return to your career of part-time drama teaching right in the face.

And so you decide it's time to fight back. Because the cast of fifth-rate clowns you sent to fill the Liberal seats at the justice committee certainly didn't do any fighting back. They not only missed the grenades, they picked them up, played with them, and then didn't even realize when they went off in their faces.

But that's all right. You're Justin Trudeau. Mr. Sunny Ways. Mr. Hope and Hard Work. You got this. So you wheel yourself out to 'push back' against Wilson-Raybould's allegations.

Only you don't push back.

You don't counter Wilson-Raybould's facts and recollections with any of your own. You don't dispute what was said, even about your alleged direct personal involvement, other than to say you disagree with Wilson-Raybould's "characterization" of events.

And it stinks.

It stinks as you moan about a difficult couple of weeks because of "internal disagreements." It stinks as you reference your success in making it easier to die, and your success in making it easier to get high. It stinks as you talk about your job being to stand up for jobs and pensions, to stand up for Canadians, and for Canadian workers, and all in an overly dramatic tone that suggests that no other prime minister has ever had that in their job description. It stinks as you speak about anything other than what Canadians need to hear from you.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5013229/david-lametti-snc-lavalin-affair-jody-wilson-raybould/

'No decision is ever final': Attorney General David Lametti as SNC-Lavalin affair continues

By Amanda Connolly

Attorney General David Lametti says decisions made by those in his role can always be changed.

In an interview with the West Block's Mercedes Stephenson, Lametti also suggested the description by his predecessor, Jody Wilson-Raybould, of attempted political interference to pressure her into helping SNC-Lavalin escape a criminal trial is not entirely accurate.

"Interference is perhaps the wrong word in that it implies something illegal is going on," he said.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5016873/candice-bergen-danirl-blaikie-snc-lavalin/

March 3, 2019 11:15 am

New attorney general 'under the thumb' of Trudeau, says Tory Candice Bergen on SNC-Lavalin

By Jessica Vomiero

Presenting a rare, united front, Tory MP Candace Bergen and NDP MP Daniel Blaikie believe the current attorney general should provide more clarity on the SNC-Lavalin affair currently plaguing Ottawa, the members told Mercedes Stephenson on The West Block this weekend.

After watching an interview between recently appointed Attorney General David Lametti and Stephenson, Bergen and Blaikie agreed that Lametti has been evasive in his communications about the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

"So there are a number of concerns but overall, to me what it looked like is we have a current attorney general who is completely under the thumb of the prime minister," said Bergen.

"What a comparison between the former attorney general, who is clear, concise, knows the law, is very direct. We heard that in her testimony and David Lametti, who was vague, evasive, didn't want to give an opinion and I would say he's doing exactly what the prime minister wants," Bergen continued.

Blaikie echoed her sentiment.

"What we need right now from the attorney general is clarity. It's what we need from the prime minister, too. And that interview was anything but clear in terms in terms of his answers," he said.

<snip>


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Mar 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-michael-wernicks-the-last-person-who-should-be-monitoring-election-fairness://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/marin-time-for-michael-wernick-to-walk-aw
> 
> GUNTER: Michael Wernick's the last person who should be monitoring election fairness



Is he actually slated to monitor it??  Read through the article quick and didn't see it. 

Maybe well get Mr Trudeau to monitor it for ethics violations, he's probably the SME on it by now.


----------



## Haggis (4 Mar 2019)

Global News is reporting that Gerald Butts' testimony is expected to rebut JWR's account.  Should be interesting.


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Mar 2019)

The new Liberal lexicon: "her/his truth" following the lines of Pres Clinton: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

JWR spoke, as stated by Trudeau and other Liberals "her truth". Butts will speak "his truth" in the hope that voters will take it as "the truth". I don't believe he will be successful among the majority of Cdns. We will see how the media handle it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Another (huge) challenge by JWR to feminist Trudeau/LPC. Lets see how he replies to the media next week when asked if he is going to authorize JWR to run for re election as a Liberal in the Oct general. Should be interesting.


op:, indeed ...


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2019)

There is now talk in the "friendly" and "bought" media that a LPC caucus revolt may become a reality and speculation on who should lead.

Interesting times...


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Mar 2019)

It's not so much that the media has been bought... it's that they don't like to be reminded of the fact.


----------



## Lumber (4 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> There is now talk in the "friendly" and "bought" media that a LPC caucus revolt may become a reality and speculation on who should lead.
> 
> Interesting times...



We've talked a lot about positive alternatives to Sheer. Who would be the best alternative to Trudeau? And please don't say ANYONE; I'm legitimately asking who are the real component and confident senior leadership types in the LPC. (And again, don't say NO ONE). 

Freeland? Goodale? Morneau?

I know these people by their names and positions, but I don't really know if they would make strong PMs.


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> We've talked a lot about positive alternatives to Sheer. Who would be the best alternative to Trudeau? And please don't say ANYONE; I'm legitimately asking who are the real component and confident senior leadership types in the LPC. (And again, don't say NO ONE).
> 
> Freeland? Goodale? Morneau?
> 
> I know these people by their names and positions, but I don't really know if they would make strong PMs.



Freeland comes to mind.  She's been prominent in the media, would maybe regain the feminist angle and has been pretty effective as a minister. 

Ralph Goodale is solid I think (Barring a few misspoken words while trying to do damage control for the boss)

Forget Morneau.  The guy has too many ethical mistakes of his own and is too linked to JT.

I know some say JWR but...the party will likely not let that happen.  She had a good performance, seems ethical and would check the box for aboriginals and women but she doesn't speak French, is relatively inexperienced and remember that many many people praising her right now were the same ones criticising Trudeau for putting people like her in cabinet to get checks in the box.  

I would support any of them minus Morneau if they were leader.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (4 Mar 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> We've talked a lot about positive alternatives to Sheer. Who would be the best alternative to Trudeau? And please don't say ANYONE; I'm legitimately asking who are the real component and confident senior leadership types in the LPC. (And again, don't say NO ONE).
> 
> Freeland? Goodale? Morneau?
> 
> I know these people by their names and positions, but I don't really know if they would make strong PMs.



Are you asking who might have the means and motive to successfully pull off a cabinet revolt or are you asking if, in a hypothetical world where Trudeau decided tomorrow to resign because he really enjoys teaching high school more than being PM who would be the best candidate to replace him until the next election?

If it is the first, I don't see anyone other than JWR herself pulling off a coup, and only then if enough cabinet ministers get really, really scared about the next election.

If it is the second, i would see either Freeland or McKenna taking the reigns. I don't honestly see all that much talent or ambition in this cabinet- maybe by design. Keeps them under the thumb of the PMO...


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Are you asking who might have the means and motive to successfully pull off a cabinet revolt or are you asking if, in a hypothetical world where Trudeau decided tomorrow to resign because he really enjoys teaching high school spending more time with the family more than being PM who would be the best candidate to replace him until the next election?


Edited to add "the usual suspect" cliché ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Mar 2019)

Remius: 





> ..... )JWR) is relatively inexperienced.....



What experience (*Life,* business/political) did Mr. Trudeau have before becoming the PM?

JWR was a, has got a law degree (which she utilized, called to the bar in 2000), became a  Crown Prosecutor (2000–2003), and is apparently a QC.


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Remius:
> What experience (*Life,* business/political) did Mr. Trudeau have before becoming the PM?
> 
> JWR was a, has got a law degree (which she utilized, called to the bar in 2000), became a  Crown Prosecutor (2000–2003), and is apparently a QC.



Rifleman, I doubt you were defending Trudeau's lack of experience when he ran. That isn't the point. 

JWR has no chance.  The internal party issues are to great.  Too many people would work against her. I'm listing the things she has going against her.  Relative inexperience will be brought up by her detractors, heck the media has already gone there.  Do I think she could do it, yes, but for the many reasons and challenges I'm listing I don't see it happening.  I realise that some of you are star struck given her performance but unless the party backs her it can't happen.   If you think the party will back her with all their back room shenanigans you are all grasping and I doubt that even you Rifleman believe that the LPC is capable of letting her do that.  I like her and I respect what she did but the machine won't allow it. 

Not now.  Maybe after an electoral loss.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Mar 2019)

I'd like to see Rona Ambrose run against Jody Wilson-Raybould… and I don't even think I'm a feminist!   ;D


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I'd like to see Rona Ambrose run against Jody Wilson-Raybould… and I don't even think I'm a feminist!   ;D



Rona Ambrose would be PM today if she had run and we wouldn't be in this mess. 

No it will be Andrew Scheer vs Trudeau (assuming he does not get ousted) and I bet Scheer will screw it up....

He's already jumped the gun according to some on this affair.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Mar 2019)

Goodale is <edited> and it will show. Garneau has managed to stay out of the shitshow so far and appears to be the "wise elder" in the background. He may not be able to win, but he would likley be good for the healing process. 

_Edited to remove a statement which was contrary to the guidelines for posting in the political forums._


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Goodale is <edited> and it will show. Garneau has managed to stay out of the shitshow so far and appears to be the "wise elder" in the background. He may not be able to win, but he would likley be good for the healing process.



Garneau would make a better interim leader I think.


----------



## brihard (4 Mar 2019)

Not a chance we'll see Trudeau step down before the election. We're eight months out, we're about to enter a really gross and protracted campaign... SNC is going to be a weight around his ankle, but at present there's no smoking gun for anything illegal, and even JWR characterized is as not illegal. This won't sink the government, it will just make te election suck more for them and will firm up some voting intentions while swaying a limited number of others. I don't think many votes will actually really swing on this over the course of the entire campaign.

That said, the election looks pretty set to be a toss up at this point, with the usual 'anything can happen' caveat. 

Would Trudeau step down if the LPC win a minority? Probably not- if he can weather this storm he'll probably keep the helm. For a Liberal leadership replacement we would probably need to see a CPC victory.

There's really not a lot of name recognition outside of the top half of Cabinet. Freeland immediately jumps to the top of my mind - she has stickhandled foreign affairs, particularly with the US, about as well as could be hoped. Being orn in Alberta wouldn't hurt her much, and she has good business experience- I think she's firm grounded in the 'real world' when it comes to trade and finance. Goodale has the political clout to potentially put it off, but I think people would be looking for someone a bit more fresh... That said, he is very highly experienced in Parliament and in the senior levels of the party, and that has something to be said for it. He would avoid many of the missteps that have plagued PMJT.

Outside of those two, nobody really stands out, though several have kept their noses suitably clean.


----------



## tomydoom (4 Mar 2019)

And the government slowly disintegrates

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-resignation-trudeau-snc-lavalin-1.5042411


----------



## brihard (4 Mar 2019)

Philpott: "I must abide by my core values, my ethical responsibilities and constitutional obligations," she said in a statement.

"There can be a cost to acting on one's principles, but there is a bigger cost to abandoning them."

Oh boy. Something’s up.


----------



## ballz (4 Mar 2019)

Wow... further up the thread I was going throw her name in as possible interim leaders if the wheels come all the way off the wagon before October... did not see that coming...


----------



## dapaterson (4 Mar 2019)

Given the current rate of change, we must amend "A week is a long time in politics" to read "A day is a long time in politics."


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2019)

Rebellion.  

Maybe JT will be forced out over this.  I can't see how he can survive much more of his cabinet resigning.  Now what?  Kick her out too? 

Looking at possible successors is becoming more and more a reality...


----------



## a_majoor (4 Mar 2019)

American Thinker suggests there is a much, much greater issue that will bring the Liberals down: the Economy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/can_prettyboy_justin_trudeau_survive.html

Relevant quote:



> This is an especially dicey time for the boy-wonder from the Great White North. Not only does he have the SNC scandal to answer for but now the economy is sagging. On Friday, the Financial Post reported that Canada's economy practically came to a halt in the final three months of 2018 in a much deeper-than-expected slowdown.  The country's economy grew by just 0.1 per cent in the fourth quarter, for an annualized pace of 0.4 per cent, Statistics Canada said Friday.



Considering we are tied at the hip to the world's largest economy, and the US economy has seen an explosive 100% jump in economic growth from 2% to 4% since 2016, this result seems incredible. Of course since Canada did not adjust tax rates to meet the challenge of US tax reform we hav lost $100 billion in foreign investment, and the blockade on pipeline construction deprives the canadian economy of millions of dollars _per day_ (and to add insult to injury, we also spend millions of dollars to import Saudi Arabian oil to supply the East Coast...).

People may not remember all the scandals and gaffes, but they will be very aware of their pocketbooks....


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Rebellion.
> 
> Maybe JT will be forced out over this.  I can't see how he can survive much more of his cabinet resigning.  Now what?  Kick her out too?


I think it's still a touch early for that (as of this post, anyway), but stand by for further evacuees ...


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the current rate of change, we must amend "A week is a long time in politics" to read "A day is a long time in politics."


 :nod:


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2019)

Maybe milnews,  but pressure just intensified and likely derailed an already derailed plan.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Maybe milnews,  but pressure just intensified and likely derailed an already derailed plan.


Fair enough, but my  :2c: is still that we're not seeing rebellion -- the crack in the dyke IS getting bigger, though.

To fuel thought experiments and to act as a "speculation score card" of sorts, here's the list of Ministers in order of precedence as of JUST before Philpott leaving ...


----------



## brihard (4 Mar 2019)

So do we get another MVA now? ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2019)

tomydoom said:
			
		

> And the government slowly disintegrates
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-resignation-trudeau-snc-lavalin-1.5042411


Aaaaand the letter, with the "nut grafs" pulled if you don't want to read the whole thing ...


----------



## QV (4 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> .... This won't sink the government...



As the government falls apart.


----------



## brihard (4 Mar 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> As the government falls apart.



Could be I’m wrong- for the time being, we’ll have to see if this turns into real momentum. The possibility also exists that if cabinet revolts hard and fast, that may allow for consolidation in time for the election. But a cabinet shakeup and a couple resignations eight months out is not a definite death knell for the current government.

In case it’s been lost or forgotten, I do hope to see the LPC defeated in the next election, but I’m still going to be pragmatic and objective as I watch what’s happening.


----------



## Remius (4 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Could be I’m wrong- for the time being, we’ll have to see if this turns into real momentum. The possibility also exists that if cabinet revolts hard and fast, that may allow for consolidation in time for the election. But a cabinet shakeup and a couple resignations eight months out is not a definite death knell for the current government.
> 
> In case it’s been lost or forgotten, I do hope to see the LPC defeated in the next election, but I’m still going to be pragmatic and objective as I watch what’s happening.



Part of this will be Gerald Butts and his testimony.  If it goes bad...

I heard a really good point on talk radio this aft.  JWR and Jane Philpott resigned on principle and not policy differences or because they themselves did something bad.  That resonates with people.


----------



## QV (4 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Could be I’m wrong- for the time being, we’ll have to see if this turns into real momentum. The possibility also exists that if cabinet revolts hard and fast, that may allow for consolidation in time for the election. But a cabinet shakeup and a couple resignations eight months out is not a definite death knell for the current government.
> 
> In case it’s been lost or forgotten, I do hope to see the LPC defeated in the next election, but I’m still going to be pragmatic and objective as I watch what’s happening.



Maybe.  Although, it's been many years since a sitting government has been rocked by this level of scandal... 

While we are on predictions... If he doesn't just contradict JWR, I think it possible Gerry Butts will try and take full blame for all of this to save the PM.  But it's too late for that IMHO.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> So do we get another MVA now? ;D



Better... The Minister Responsible for Spending Money (Public Services and Procurement Canada) has just been double-hatted as being also The Minister for Writing Cheques (President of the Treasury Board) - Carla Qualtrough -  Qhat type of Trough was that?


----------



## QV (4 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Better... The Minister Responsible for Spending Money (Public Services and Procurement Canada) has just been double-hatted as being also The Minister for Writing Cheques (President of the Treasury Board) - Carla Qualtrough -  Qhat type of Trough was that?


I didn't think you could 32 and 33?


----------



## PuckChaser (4 Mar 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> I didn't think you could 32 and 33?


You're not supposed to use political pressure to get your friends off the hook on federal bribery charges either, but here we are.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Mar 2019)

QQ: if you were Bill Morneau, what action could you take right now to reclaim/ recover your reputation? Just watching him so solemn faced waiting for his Lordship to appear at the Climate Change rally.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2019)

Morneau on Philpott's resignation:



> Shortly after Cabinet minister and Liberal MP Jane Philpott resigned from her post, Finance Minister Bill Morneau commented on her resignation.
> 
> “*Jane Philpott is a close personal friend of Jody Wilson-Raybould*. She took a decision, I respect her decision. She was a good colleague, and she’ll take the decision that makes the most sense to her,” said Morneau.



https://www.thepostmillennial.com/bill-morneau-says-philpott-resigned-because-she-was-a-close-personal-friend-with-jody-wilson-raybould/


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> ... If he doesn't just contradict JWR, I think it possible Gerry Butts will try and take full blame for all of this to save the PM.  But it's too late for that IMHO.


I'm going to put my loonie on the other side:  he's going to go down the, "at no time did I ever tell anyone to break the law - we were only looking for solutions" message track.

Also, paint me cynical, but remember as we hear more testimony that some say the difference between (1)  "I don't remember" and (2) "I don't recall" is that with (1), one looks in the filing cabinet that is one's memory, but there's no file to be found, while with (2), the file may or may not be there, but one chooses not to open the cabinet to look


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2019)

I would suggest that it is game.







https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-imposter/


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Mar 2019)

You don’t think that’s too much of a low shot??


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 Mar 2019)

WHAT ABOUT ALBERTA JOBS?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-entitled-dpa-1.5042822
*
A 'deferred prosecution agreement' would allow the firm to avoid criminal prosecution* - 4 Mar 19

A Liberal MP says his party believes the SNC-Lavalin is "entitled" (there's that word again) to a deferred prosecution agreement — a legal mechanism that would allow the Quebec engineering firm to avoid criminal prosecution. "Our belief is that this company is one that is, like its competitors around the world, entitled to a deferred prosecution agreement, like they would be able to have access to in the U.K.," Steven MacKinnon, parliamentary secretary to the minister of Public Services and Procurement, told CBC News's Power & Politics today.

"The government's adopted approach on this is one that has favoured jobs, it's one that has favoured pensioners, supply chains and a major Canadian company - all innocent victims of some corrupt management maybe a decade ago." The Gatineau MP was speaking in the immediate aftermath of Jane Philpott's stunning resignation from cabinet earlier today. In a letter to the prime minister, the now former Treasury Board president said she's lost confidence in the way the Trudeau government has handled the growing SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Last week, former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould told a Commons justice committee she faced heavy political pressure and veiled threats from top Liberal officials who wanted her to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid a trial on bribery charges. SNC-Lavalin is facing corruption charges over contracts in Libya and was lobbying for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) as an alternative to criminal prosecution. DPAs allow companies to avoid criminal prosecution by paying hefty fines and, in some cases, agreeing to outside monitoring.

During her testimony, Wilson-Raybould, who resigned from cabinet last month, recounted how Kathleen Roussel, the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), let her know in early September 2018 that she was rejecting the company's request to negotiate a deferred prosecution. MacKinnon pointed to legislation that allows the attorney general to overturn a decision made by the director of public prosecutions.

"We do have a disagreement here. We absolutely have a disagreement here and I think the current attorney general has said that, look you have to keep assessing the facts as these cases move along," he said. "But the fact is that we have 10,000 Canadians and their families and pensioners and suppliers and others who are not entitled to the same kind relief they would get if they were to work for an SNC-Lavalin competitor in the United States or in the United Kingdom ...

"The disagreement goes to how you see how Canada ought to approach major economic questions like the SNC-Lavalin issue. Do we do it like our OECD partners, do with these deferred prosecution arrangements, that have been widely discussed? Or do we do it with a ... perhaps more rigid approach?" Deferred prosecution agreements ​became law in Canada in September of 2018. The SNC-Lavalin criminal case is now at the preliminary hearing stage. The company has pleaded not guilty.


----------



## Kirkhill (4 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> You don’t think that’s too much of a low shot??



It might be.  But that is what Macleans is going with, under the lead of Paul Wells.

I also recall that it was Macleans that cemented Harper's reputation as "Scary" with a comparable cover.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Mar 2019)

That’s true.


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Mar 2019)

Still above the fold @ the BBC as of ~20 minutes ago ...


----------



## Haggis (4 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I'm going to put my loonie on the other side:  he's going to go down the, "at no time did I ever tell anyone to break the law - we were only looking for solutions."



I think you're right.  This, along with stressing her political inexperience, business naivete and misinterpretation of the "advice" she received from the PM, PMO will be the response he will give.  This will set the stage for the new AG to issue the DPA as a "course correction" for the government.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (4 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> I think you're right.  This, along with stressing her political inexperience, business naivete and misinterpretation of the "advice" she received from the PM, PMO will be the response he will give.  This will set the stage for the new AG to issue the DPA as a "course correction" for the government.



Perhaps. But she can point out the reverse: Neither Trudeau, Telford or Butts - not even Wernick - have ANY background or knowledge of law. They ALL come from a 'soft' arts or social sciences background. They have no claim on knowing law or ethics better than she does.

She delivered a classic, well prepared (note I didn't say "rehearsed') court like testimony-in-chief statement, with everything you need to make it believable. Can any of the following "witnesses" who come from an arts background (and probably believe they know better than her just because of where they rose in life in politics) make such a powerful impact in their testimony?

Personally, I doubt it very much. But we will see, won't we?  :nod:





This could be a lot of fun.


----------



## JesseWZ (5 Mar 2019)

It's very odd to me that a DPA could even be considered in this case at all. At my office, we're often dealing with historical files where someone comes in to report a matter 20, 30 sometimes even 50 years old - as a first report. If we were to successfully locate the subject and grounds exist for charges, I cannot lay charges under the Criminal Code of today for an incident from back then - I have to use the Criminal Code as it existed at the time. If SNC Lavalin successfully lobbied the government (as it would appear to be the case) in 2018 to change the law, shouldn't it only apply from when it received Royal Assent moving forward and not retroactively apply to offences in the past? That's always been my understanding of the law...


Maybe FJAG can weigh in here...


----------



## tomydoom (5 Mar 2019)

It even made the news here in Ireland. RTÉ is the Irish equivalent to the CBC.







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2019)

Just as a quick set up/head's up, here's who's speaking when tomorrow (Wed 6 Mar) ...


> Notice of meeting
> Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)
> 42nd Parliament, 1st Session
> 
> ...





> Notice of meeting
> Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)
> 42nd Parliament, 1st Session
> 
> ...


Canada's Cable Public Affairs Channel usually has a good link to live feeds from these things.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> It's very odd to me that a DPA could even be considered in this case at all. At my office, we're often dealing with historical files where someone comes in to report a matter 20, 30 sometimes even 50 years old - as a first report. If we were to successfully locate the subject and grounds exist for charges, I cannot lay charges under the Criminal Code of today for an incident from back then - I have to use the Criminal Code as it existed at the time. If SNC Lavalin successfully lobbied the government (as it would appear to be the case) in 2018 to change the law, shouldn't it only apply from when it received Royal Assent moving forward and not retroactively apply to offences in the past? That's always been my understanding of the law...
> 
> 
> Maybe FJAG can weigh in here...



My guess and it is only that, is that DPA is a sort of plea bargain mechanism.  So they can still be charged for something and prosecuted but the sentencing and plea bargain arrangement is what is different. 

Imagine someone murdered a family at the time we had the death penalty.  That someone could be charged for a crime committed at that time.  But the sentence and plea bargain rules would be today's standard not the standard that applied back then no?


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Just as a quick set up/head's up, here's who's speaking when tomorrow (Wed 6 Mar) ...Canada's Cable Public Affairs Channel usually has a good link to live feeds from these things.



Interesting. 

I'll be paying attention toe what the DM has to say...


----------



## dapaterson (5 Mar 2019)

Interesting that the two who resigned are both members of regulated professions with standards for ethical behaviour.


----------



## Loachman (5 Mar 2019)

https://globalnews.ca/news/5021267/trudeau-approval-rating-snc-lavalin-wilson-raybould/

March 4, 2019 9:42 pm

Most Canadians side with Wilson-Raybould, believe _*Trudeau has lost moral authority to govern*_: Ipsos poll

By Rahul Kalvapalle

A majority of Canadians are keeping tabs on the SNC-Lavalin affair and that doesn't bode well for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, according to a new Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News.

If an election were held tomorrow, Trudeau would receive only 31 per cent of the decided popular vote - down three points from a couple of weeks ago - while Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer would receive 40 per cent, according to the poll of 1,000 Canadians carried out between March 1 and March 4.

That's the biggest lead the Conservatives have had since the previous election campaign - and that's despite the fact that the polling data was obtained before Treasury Board President Jane Philpott resigned from Trudeau's cabinet on Monday, following in the heels of former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould and principal secretary Gerald Butts.

"This is the first time we've actually seen the Conservative Party resuscitated and looking like they could potentially form the government," said Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs.

"The Liberals, on the other hand, have been dropping precipitously over the space of the last few weeks. The question is have they hit bottom yet?"

The national approval figures are mirrored in Canada's largest province, Ontario, where the Conservatives sit at 40 per cent, nine points over the Liberals, who are at 31 per cent.

Crucially, the Tories enjoy a commanding lead in the vote-rich 905 region surrounding Toronto.

<snip>

The polling also reveals that the ongoing SNC-Lavalin affair is directly responsible for Trudeau's flagging support.

Sixty-four per cent of Canadians say they're now following the issue - that's 15 points up from two weeks ago.

Most of them also say they believe the issue deserves all the attention it has been getting, compared to less than a third who say the matter is being blown out of proportion.

<snip>

A majority of Canadians - 55 per cent - also say it's going to influence their voting decisions in this year's federal election. That includes nearly one in five Liberal voters.

<snip>

"[Canadians] are coming to conclusions, and the conclusions they're coming to relate to the character of the main protagonist," said Bricker.

<snip>

Nearly a quarter of Liberal voters say they believe Trudeau should step aside while the SNC-Lavalin affair is investigated, with 73 per cent of Liberals agreeing that the RCMP should probe the issue and lay charges against politicians and bureaucrats where appropriate.

<snip>

Bricker says Trudeau is faced with three options: tough it out until the next election, step aside and let someone else lead the Liberal Party or call a snap election to clear the air.

Approval rating numbers suggest Trudeau would be well-advised not to take up Option 3.

<snip>


----------



## Loachman (5 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Imagine someone murdered a family at the time we had the death penalty.  That someone could be charged for a crime committed at that time.  But the sentence and plea bargain rules would be today's standard not the standard that applied back then no?



I have seen statutory rape cases where the age-of-consent in place at the time of the offence, as opposed to the the age-of-consent in place at the time of the charge or trial, was what the court considered.

Sentence is another matter, at least in the case of a punishment not currently available.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> I have seen statutory rape cases where the age-of-consent in place at the time of the offence, as opposed to the the age-of-consent in place at the time of the charge or trial, was what the court considered.
> 
> Sentence is another matter, at least in the case of a punishment not currently available.



That is sort of what I was getting at.  The crime and when it was perpetrated is one thing.  The sentencing and plea bargain system is another. 

But I am out of my lane on this.


----------



## Haggis (5 Mar 2019)

My expectation is that both Butts and Wernick will come out swinging tomorrow.  No apologies, no contrition.  Straight on the offensive towards JWR and possibly even Phillipot.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Mar 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interesting that the two who resigned are both members of regulated professions with standards for ethical behaviour.



But according to this previous post, Finance Minister Morneau never mentioned ethics, merely that "Jane Philpott is a close personal friend of Jody Wilson-Raybould."  You know how girls all go to the washroom in packs... same thing here.  Not even a hint of condescension in that.

    op:


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> My expectation is that both Butts and Wernick will come out swinging tomorrow.  No apologies, no contrition.  Straight on the offensive towards JWR and possibly even Phillipot.



This may have the opposite effect of what's desired.


----------



## Haggis (5 Mar 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This may have the opposite effect of what's desired.



I never said it would work!  ;D


----------



## JesseWZ (5 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> My guess and it is only that, is that DPA is a sort of plea bargain mechanism.  So they can still be charged for something and prosecuted but the sentencing and plea bargain arrangement is what is different.
> 
> Imagine someone murdered a family at the time we had the death penalty.  That someone could be charged for a crime committed at that time.  But the sentence and plea bargain rules would be today's standard not the standard that applied back then no?



I’ve never seen the system work that way... for example, we charged someone with child pornography offences in 2016 for offences that took place prior to the change and addition of mandatory minimum sentencing. Even though the charges, trial and verdict were all within the new sentencing regime, the old sentencing regime (from the time of the offence) was used.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Mar 2019)

The Prime Minister is returning to Ottawa.  Story here.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

JesseWZ said:
			
		

> I’ve never seen the system work that way... for example, we charged someone with child pornography offences in 2016 for offences that took place prior to the change and addition of mandatory minimum sentencing. Even though the charges, trial and verdict were all within the new sentencing regime, the old sentencing regime (from the time of the offence) was used.



Well I'll defer to someone who knows.  I doubt we would sentence anyone to death for crimes committed when we still had the death penalty on the books.  Seems odd.


----------



## YZT580 (5 Mar 2019)

I give Trudeau one more week to get things under control.  If he is unable to stop the blood-letting the folks who pull the strings will engineer a spontaneous uprising of those parliamentarians who are members of the liberal party.  In turn they will select an alternative leader and then inform the governor-general that Trudeau has lost the support of parliament and a new leader will take over.


----------



## MilEME09 (5 Mar 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> I give Trudeau one more week to get things under control.  If he is unable to stop the blood-letting the folks who pull the strings will engineer a spontaneous uprising of those parliamentarians who are members of the liberal party.  In turn they will select an alternative leader and then inform the governor-general that Trudeau has lost the support of parliament and a new leader will take over.



Or enough liberal MPs break ranks of this gets worse, non-confidence happens and the government falls.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2019)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Or enough liberal MPs break ranks of this gets worse, non-confidence happens and the government falls.


Next confidence votes aren't all that far away ...  

_Right now_, I'm betting there's nowhere near enough Team Red MP's willing to change sides to vote 'er down on a whipped vote (which budget votes are).  Mind you, one interesting question coming to mind is:  how much sanction can a party leader mete out if they're no longer PM after a shoulda-been-whipped-but-didn't-end-up-whipped confidence vote?

But like someone said earlier ...


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Given the current rate of change, we must amend "A week is a long time in politics" to read "A day is a long time in politics."


----------



## kratz (5 Mar 2019)

I'm enjoying my popcorn and watching this issue, along with the Admiral's and other issues implode on the PM.

I had my predictions in 2015, but nothing this entertaining.


----------



## Haggis (5 Mar 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> I give Trudeau one more week to get things under control.



What makes you say things are out of control?  "Sunny Ways", remember?  This is part of his master plan for another majority.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Mar 2019)

Scummy Ways I believe.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

The LPC can get out of this but not without some scars. 

Damage control and spin required. 

1.  Get in front of this.  Admit to applying pressure but with good intentions to save jobs, apologise to JRW for what she went through and insist that nothing illegal happened but that there was a breach of ethical standard and that they will do better.

2. Welcome any police investigation should it happen. 

3.  Pass a bill separating the AG and Justice minister role and tell everyone that this is being done to avoid mistakes.  Offer JWR her choice for which one she wants to do.  Maybe offer her the more independent AG role.  Heck get her to spearhead a LPC code of ethics and stick to it. 

4. Get away from the Trudeau brand and develop a Liberal brand.  Trudeau's brand has taken too much of a hit. 

Hope you've done enough to squeak out a win in the fall.


----------



## Haggis (5 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> 1.  Get in front of this.  Admit to applying pressure but with good intentions to save jobs, apologize to JWR for what she went through and insist that nothing illegal happened but that there was a breach of ethical standard and that they will do better.



This might be where Butts and Wernick will head tomorrow.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> 2. Welcome any police investigation should it happen.


  And hope it's not concluded before election day. 



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> 3.  Pass a bill separating the AG and Justice minister role and tell everyone that this is being done to avoid mistakes.  Offer JWR her choice for which one she wants to do.  Maybe offer her the more independent AG role.  Heck get her to spearhead a LPC code of ethics and stick to it.


  An idea which will be pointed out 
 to have been plagiarized from the Conservatives of Stephen Harper?  Not a chance! 



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> 4. Get away from the Trudeau brand and develop a Liberal brand.  Trudeau's brand has taken too much of a hit.


 The personality politics cult won't allow this.  The Trudeau brand won the last election.  Nice socks and great hair, remember?



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> Hope you've done enough to squeak out a win in the fall.


  I think the best they can hope for now is a minority.  Not a win, really, but buys them four years to rebuild without having to accomplish anything governmentally.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> This might be where Butts and Wernick will head tomorrow.
> And hope it's not concluded before election day.
> An idea which will be pointed out
> to have been plagiarized from the Conservatives of Stephen Harper?  Not a chance!
> ...



Not saying they will do all of that.

As far as a police investigation they could take a chance that the RCMP isn't even going to investigate. But just saying you welcome it is about optics.

Personality politics only works if the brand works.  The band is broken and likely beyond repair.  You get more votes by sending JWR in contested ridings as she is a better face of the party.  The CPC tried to rely on the Harper brand and it failed them in the end.  

Plagiarising is a common thing in politics.  They can just claim the CPC couldn't get it done so they did and popint to other Westminster nations that have done the same.  It wasn't a CPC idea in the first place. 

But I think they will screw it up anyways and things might go from worse to worser.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The LPC can get out of this but not without some scars.
> 
> Damage control and spin required.
> 
> ...



Fortunately or unfortunately, depending what you're looking for, the trudeau brand is the liberal brand. The party is likely to wear this for much longer than they had to suffer under his dad's former image. The PM is a Lauretien Elite and is marking the rest of the elites with his image. They've always managed to stay hidden in plain sight while operating the country for their own benefit. Problems and favoritism, with Bombardier and SNC among them. People are seeing things clearer with things like the PMs Trust Fund people also on the board of SNC. The amount of previous Quebec PMs and other politicians now on the payroll of Power Corp and it's subsidiaries is an eye opener for anyone that wants to take a shot of unraveling Power Corps sphere of influence.  

People are starting to see the tangled web that the LE's have spun, how they've taken advantage of everyday Canadians as a matter of course.

The face of the Laurentien Elites and the grit party is Trudeau and he is doing serious damage to the brand.

Bob Rae's hamfisted attempt at premiership of Ontario has followed the provincial NDP like an albatross standing on the millstone around their neck.

Trudeau and the liberals are about to suffer the same fate. The grits will be know as the party of trudeau and hold the jaundiced eye of the electorate for a long, long time.

I almost expect Bernier to have a better showing than the grits and I have no time for him either.

Just me spitballin'


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

That's danger of attaching a personality to a party.  They may well be too entrenched now to get away but I can't see how staying with the brand will help unless they seriously reinvent JT.  I don't see that happening as he is a bit 2 dimensional for that.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> ... Bob Rae's hamfisted attempt at premiership of Ontario has followed the provincial NDP like an albatross standing on the millstone around their neck.  Trudeau and the liberals are about to suffer the same fate. The grits will be know as the party of trudeau and hold the jaundiced eye of the electorate for a long, long time ...


Don't know if it'll be as bad, but for sure in the same direction.

On that, the following, with some key caveats:  1)  Only *one* poll.  2)  LONG time to election day.  3)  We've seen polls predict less than ideally in the past.  All that said, another tile in the info-mosaic via Ipsos ...


> *Liberals (31%, -3) Shed Support as Tories (40%, +4) Capitalize in Wake of Jody Wilson-Raybould Testimony*
> 
> _Canadians Siding Decidedly with Wilson-Raybould (67%) over Trudeau (33%); Majority (62%) Agrees Prime Minister Has Lost Moral Authority to Govern_
> 
> ...


More @ Ipsos's info-machine here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2019)

Oh they'll want to change it, I'm sure. He just can't be reinvented though. Too far gone.

The problem is not what they want or or what they do.

It is the Canadian public that won't let them change the channel.

I'm seeing hate and venom for him and the grits unlike I've seen before. Even with his old man. 20 and 30 somethings are voicing their disgust for him and they'll be voting for another 50 years. He is fast becoming a pariah.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Oh they'll want to change it, I'm sure. He just can't be reinvented though. Too far gone.
> 
> The problem is not what they want or or what they do.
> 
> ...



Look at us agreeing.

Dogs are meowing, cats are barking.   ;D


----------



## Navy_Pete (5 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Oh they'll want to change it, I'm sure. He just can't be reinvented though. Too far gone.
> 
> The problem is not what they want or or what they do.
> 
> ...



He got in by playing on people's hope for something better.  Aside from the cult of personality, I think a lot of people were genuinely optimistic that his 'sunny ways' pitch was going to be a real change. He hasn't done anything particularly out of the realm of the low bar we set for our politicians, but his problem is he got in on a virtue card.

You can do a lot of things, but dashing people's hope is not something you can recover from; that inspires straight up hate.

The only thing I could see that would get people back onside would be a large resignation/firing of the politicians/PS involved, Trudeau stepping down, and total shakeup of the way the PMO runs things.  Can't see that happening, but personally I'd probably consider voting liberal if JWR were at the helm. I don't have any dedicated party support, but found her believable and was refreshing to see someone with integrity.


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

Trudeau might be changing his tune on the whole affair.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-raybould-philpott-snc-lavalin-1.5043763

One of the steps I stated he might need to do.  Might not be enough but we'll see. Probably should have done that to begin with.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> ... One of the steps I stated he might need to do.  Might not be enough but we'll see. Probably should have done that to begin with.


Especially this bit from the CBC piece:  "show some ownership over the actions of his staff and officials".

We'll see - thanks for that link.


----------



## QV (5 Mar 2019)

Enter Butts and Wernick to accept all blame, the PM didn't know the scope to which they pressured, how dare they... the Deputy AG testifies it wasn't criminal but awfully inappropriate, a few people go under the forced resignation bus, but no criminal charges.  Could this happen?  Is this enough to change the channel in time?


----------



## FJAG (5 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Trudeau might be changing his tune on the whole affair.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-raybould-philpott-snc-lavalin-1.5043763
> 
> One of the steps I stated he might need to do.  Might not be enough but we'll see. Probably should have done that to begin with.



It's this quote that gives me trouble:



> A senior government official said one of the options being discussed is for Trudeau to "show some ownership over the actions of his staff and officials" in their dealings with his former attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould.



In effect the line seems to be that as leader he should take responsibility for what his staff did. Fair enough, BUT: its strikes me that what they did was at his direct order. This isn't taking ownership for their actions but fessing up the fact that he's the one behind the whole thing in the first place. I doubt that he'll do that considering how quickly Butts was thrown overboard. If anyone should go it's the Golden Boy himself but I doubt that he will because I think he's too arrogant to let go of his position. He should be joined by Wernick whose veneer of independence is forever stained.

 :2c:


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Mar 2019)

I was overseas when Trudeau got elected...I totally bet my Dad via a crappy connection that Trudeau would do two terms because our country was so shallow. 

Now I may actually have to pay up...  ;D


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> ... its strikes me that what they did was* at his direct order* ...


As direct an order as can be proven, without cross examining the orderer...


----------



## Kirkhill (5 Mar 2019)

Warren Kinsella .....



> Morons. They leak that they’re THINKING about apologizing - thereby ensuring it looks like a cynical comms tactic. Why not just DO it, and be genuine for once? “Trudeau considering a statement of contrition over SNC-Lavalin” #cdnpoli #lavscam
> 
> 12:55 PM - 5 Mar 2019



https://twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/1103036352516575233


----------



## QV (5 Mar 2019)

Liberal MP Leona Alleslev just crossed the floor.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Mar 2019)

On September 17, 2018, she crossed the floor.


----------



## Haggis (5 Mar 2019)

Will he feign anger or shed a contrite tear?


----------



## Remius (5 Mar 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> Liberal MP Leona Alleslev just crossed the floor.



She crossed in sept.  Did she cross back again?  ;D


----------



## Haggis (5 Mar 2019)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> The Prime Minister is returning to Ottawa.  Story here.


Conflicting narratives are emerging on this move.  The PMO says he cancelled the visit.  Other sources say due to protests, the GM of the Canadian Tire store he was to visit said he was no longer welcome there.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Mar 2019)

McKenna was in Windsor today. They're going full press on climate change trying to change the channel. Both her and freeland stated their support. "I have full confidence in the PM." Both the same, both given without qualification or question.

She was asked about Philpot and JWR. "Two strong women with a different perspective of what really happened."

Isnt that pretty well what trudeau said about the reporter in the Kokanee Groper case?

The more they try make it go away, the worse it gets.

Tarred,  feathered and run out of town on a rail might be too tame for the liberal party in Canadians views.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Warren Kinsella .....
> 
> https://twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/1103036352516575233


Wow! Kinsella and Ledrew have a Sergeant sized hate on for team Trudeau. Meanwhile, I just watched Sheila Copps rip Dr. P and JWR, calling for their removal from the LPC, basically (without saying it) colored them as carpet baggers.
While the old saying hell hath no fury etc., I've been looking at the back grounds of DMs and Department heads and advisors to both of these former Ministers of the Crown. It seems they both have assembled quite the collage of seething, indignant feminists in their departments. For those thinking/wishing JWR for PM, be careful what you wish for.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Mar 2019)

I think that it's somewhat telling given Mr Kinsella's political pedigree.

Warren Kinsella - Wikipedia

Of course, Sheila Copps has the opposing view that Ms Wilson-Raybould  and Dr Philpott should be ejected from the LPC.

op: indeed


----------



## YZT580 (5 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Trudeau might be changing his tune on the whole affair.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-raybould-philpott-snc-lavalin-1.5043763
> 
> One of the steps I stated he might need to do.  Might not be enough but we'll see. Probably should have done that to begin with.


  First thing he is going to have to do is either stop lying or learn to lie effectively: he will probably take lessons on the later.  His initial statement said that he had been talking to Philpott and while he regretted her departure he understood her loyalty to her friend.  Now the headline says he knew nothing about it. 
That illustrates the greatest problem he is going to have in making a recovery.  Once you have proven yourself an habitual liar it is hard maybe impossible to gain any credibility at all. I still give him one week.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Mar 2019)

Credibility with who? The 5% of Canadians who give a crap about that versus what next can I get out of this dude before he's not PM anymore.


----------



## Haggis (5 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Credibility with who? The 5% of Canadians who give a crap about that versus what next can I get out of this dude before he's not PM anymore.



Nailed it!  95% of Canadians won't care about this story until it interrupts a hockey game.  Then, it'll be pitchforks and hockey sticks for Trudeau.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Mar 2019)

March 19: Federal budget with some nifty new things.

March 26: "To execute this agenda to support and build the middle class, we are returning to the people for a fresh mandate"

May 14: The Running of the Reptiles.


This prediction, plus $2, will get you a large double-double at Timmies.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Nailed it!  95% of Canadians won't care about this story until it interrupts a hockey game.  Then, it'll be pitchforks and hockey sticks for Trudeau.


I know anecdote =/= singular of data, but a TON of people I know who don't usually care about politics are into this, one side or another.  YMMV


			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> March 19: Federal budget with some nifty new things.
> 
> March 26: "To execute this agenda to support and build the middle class, we are returning to the people for a fresh mandate"
> 
> ...


VERY interesting - see attached


----------



## Brad Sallows (5 Mar 2019)

There have been two factions (eg. Trudeau/Chretien, Turner/Martin) in the LPC for a few decades now.  It's not clear to me who composes the latter group at present.  Without knowing who they are, what their strength is, and what direction they might want to take the party, it's difficult to countenance any of the hypothetical scenarios about what Trudeau et al might do to smooth things over.  The sharpest knives out against the LPC are often those of one faction in the party pitted against the other.


----------



## dapaterson (5 Mar 2019)

It's been interesting to see old-school power at any price Liberals (Sheila Copps, I'm talking about you) come out of the woodwork.

Normally, a party has to lose an election to go into deep soul searching mode.  This "Do what we must to retain power" vs "We have principles and ethics" confrontation spilling out and being fought in public is an interesting change from normal internal party politics.


----------



## YZT580 (6 Mar 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There have been two factions (eg. Trudeau/Chretien, Turner/Martin) in the LPC for a few decades now.  It's not clear to me who composes the latter group at present.  Without knowing who they are, what their strength is, and what direction they might want to take the party, it's difficult to countenance any of the hypothetical scenarios about what Trudeau et al might do to smooth things over.  The sharpest knives out against the LPC are often those of one faction in the party pitted against the other.


Someone or some group within the party certainly is out for blood.  Telegraphing his possible tactics in advance has just eliminated the owning up to it route for Justin. Now it will only make him appear more opportunistic.  I'm guessing a palace coup and it will be arbitrated by his own faction.  Chretien and co. will not support Trudeau but will initiate the lynching if they see any way of staving off losing power.


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2019)

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/05/news/snc-lavalin-lawyer-iacobucci-urged-resign-trudeaus-trans-mountain-envoy

SNC-Lavalin lawyer Iacobucci urged to resign as Trudeau's Trans Mountain envoy

By Alastair Sharp in News, Energy, Politics | March 5th 2019

Frank Iacobucci's name popped up a couple of times in Jody Wilson-Raybould's bombshell Feb. 27 testimony before the House of Commons justice committee about allegations of political interference in her last months as attorney general of Canada.

Some First Nations in British Columbia will also recognize the name from recent invitations to attend talks about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

Iacobucci is a retired Supreme Court justice and lawyer for Torys LLP, whom Quebec engineering and construction company SNC-Lavalin hired to help it secure a plea deal and avoid a criminal conviction on corruption charges.

Wilson-Raybould told the Commons committee that his name came up during a conversation between a member of her staff and Ben Chin, chief of staff to Finance Minister Bill Morneau on Sept. 11, when Chin "noted" that the retired judge was representing the Quebec company.

About a week later, Wilson-Raybould heard his name again during a chat with the government's top public servant, Michael Wernick, who is clerk of the Privy Council Office in Canada.

"The clerk brought up job losses and that this is not about the Quebec election or the PM being a Montreal MP," Wilson-Raybould said, recounting a Sept. 19 meeting with Wernick. "He said that he understands that SNC is going back and forth with the (director of public prosecutions), that they want more information. He said that 'Iacobucci is not a shrinking violet.'"

Two weeks after that meeting, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government announced a new job for Iacobucci on Oct. 3, 2018. The retired judge, still representing SNC-Lavalin, was now being appointed as Trudeau's special envoy for discussions with First Nations in British Columbia about the Trans Mountain expansion project.

<snip>

Now, a prominent First Nations leader in British Columbia says it's time for the retired Supreme Court justice to quit one of those two jobs.

"_*I do not feel that Justice Iacobucci can negotiate with those whose consent must be freely granted*_ before the Trans Mountain project can proceed, _*since it's unclear whose interests he is really representing*_," Chief Judy Wilson, the secretary-treasury of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), told National Observer in a telephone interview on Monday.

"_*We're unclear if the Liberal government even realizes the conflict*_, but we call upon the federal government to ask Frank Iacobucci to step down from one of these positions," said Wilson, a representative of the ???Neskonlith Indian Band within the Secwepemc Nation.

<snip>

https://nationalpost.com/news/snc-lavalin-ceo-urged-cabinet-to-change-policies-expeditiously-in-2017-letter

SNC-Lavalin CEO urged cabinet to change anti-corruption policies 'expeditiously' in 2017 letter

The letter, obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information law, shows a high-level push for policy changes to help the engineering and construction giant avoid prosecution

Andy Blatchford

March 5, 2019 5:03 PM EST

OTTAWA - The head of SNC-Lavalin _*told*_ the Canadian government it *had* to change its anti-corruption rules "_*as expeditiously as possible*_" in a 2017 letter to the minister in charge of procurement, just as her department was helping oversee public consultations on lighter punishments for corporate misconduct.

SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce wrote to Public Services Minister Carla Qualtrough on Oct. 13, 2017 and sent copies of his message to seven other senior cabinet ministers.

Bruce also attached his company's official submission for the consultations, which were examining possible changes to the "integrity regime" and the potential creation of a plea-bargain-type tool known as a deferred-prosecution agreement or remediation agreement.

<snip>

The letter, obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information law, shows a high-level push for policy changes to help the engineering and construction giant avoid prosecution.

<snip>

SNC-Lavalin lobbied federal officials, including in the Prime Minister's Office, to put remediation agreements into the law.

A few months after the public consultations in fall 2017, the Trudeau government included the Criminal Code amendment creating the agreements in last spring's 582-page omnibus budget bill.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5023506/liberal-steve-mackinnon-snc-lavalin-entitled-remediation/

March 5, 2019 3:20 pm

Liberal Steve MacKinnon walking back claim SNC-Lavalin ‘entitled' to avoid criminal trial

By Amanda Connolly

Gatineau Liberal MP Steve MacKinnon is walking back his claim that SNC-Lavalin is "_*entitled*_" to a deferred prosecution deal to avoid criminal trial.

Speaking in a scrum following a speech in Ottawa on Tuesday, MacKinnon said his remarks on CBC's Power & Politics on Monday night were an "_*unfortunate choice of words*_" but stressed his sentiments for why he thinks the firm should get a deal remain the same.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-talking-points-1.5044266

Trudeau's _*verbal porridge*_ and serene smile have carried him along. Until now: Neil Macdonald

He either doesn't think the public deserves a straight answer, or just isn't capable of delivering one

Neil Macdonald CBC News Posted: Mar 06, 2019 4:00 AM ET

If you're looking for some instructive reading, go look up an aggregation of utterances by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Some are already famous for their loopiness: budgets balance themselves, the government shouldn't call honour killings barbaric, we need to rethink the definitions of space and time, we should say "peoplekind" instead of "mankind" (he may actually have been making fun of himself with that one).

Most, though, are just syrupy, unmemorable banalities about values and optimism and respect and caring for one another.

Like this masterpiece of tautology the day he was sworn in as prime minister: "The diversity that makes this country so strong is a diversity of views that will carry us forward."

Trudeau's happy blather was digestible enough at first, particularly after nearly a decade of Stephen Harper. Like tapioca after heartburn. But as it kept coming, picked up and amplified by his cabinet ministers, it began grating on the nerves, the way retail Christmas-carol Muzak does by late November.

Eventually, it became clear that our prime minister didn't really have much else to say. He relies more heavily on talking points than any Canadian leader in my memory (40-plus years), his answers swollen with extraneous words and catchphrases crafted by his messaging experts.

He and his ministers are capable of answering nearly any question with some vow of support for "the middle class and those who are working so hard to join it," an annoyingly meaningless phrase that's become a banner for his government.

In any case, this verbal porridge, delivered with a serene smile, has carried him along. Until now.

With his government sinking into a self-inflicted crisis, it's beginning to appear that Justin Trudeau simply doesn't have the intellectual acuity to cope.

Look at his response to the testimony of Jody Wilson-Raybould last week. She had just finished delivering a measured, unambiguous indictment, accusing him and his staff of attempting to pervert justice for political gain.

He could have answered his former justice minister fact for fact. Instead, Trudeau appeared a few hours later in Montreal, two rows of nervously smiling party volunteers arranged behind him, a newly elected MP standing haplessly to the side. His statements were as stilted and contrived as the optics.

"We will stand up and defend and create jobs, and we will always defend our institutions and rule of law."

<snip>

This is a man who either doesn't think the public deserves a straight answer, or just isn't capable of delivering one.

And there was the flicker of condescension he's shown before; it was important, he said, that Wilson-Raybould be able to speak, and he was glad he'd allowed her to.

Uh-huh. He was glad.

It was much the same performance this week, after Jane Philpott followed Wilson-Raybould out the cabinet door, declaring she could not square her constitutional obligations as a minister of the Crown with the evidence she'd seen of political interference.

A few hours later, at a rally in Toronto to gin up support for a carbon tax, Trudeau made a manic entrance, grinning and high-fiving and flesh-pressing and trying to look happy, before grabbing Environment Minister Catherine McKenna in an awkward hug, and, puzzlingly, yelling, at a Liberal rally, "Are there any Liberals in the house?"

Then, more empty message track.

"In a democracy like ours and in a space where we value our diversity so strongly, we're allowed to have disagreements and debate, we even encourage it. This matter has generated an important discussion."

Oh, and also, he's taking it all seriously. So there's that.

<snip>

Actually, there are more honest moments in the pantheon of Trudeau's quotations than in any of his performances in the past few weeks.

Back in 2013, former Global anchorman Tom Clark asked Trudeau about his intellectual substance.

His answer: "You know, I'm not going to go around reciting Pi to the 19th decibel or you know wave my grades, or test scores to people. I'm going to simply do what it is that I have to do." Most people can't recite Pi to any decibel, let alone decimal.

In another encounter with Clark a year later, this time jammed into the cabin of Clark's little airplane, he talked about the necessity of educating people (read: all of us).

"I am a teacher. It's how I define myself. A good teacher isn't someone who gives the answers out to their kids but is understanding of needs and challenges and gives tools to help other people succeed."

To the National Post's John Ivison, he declared: "Who cares about winning? We should focus on serving." (Actually, according to Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau cares a great deal about winning, to the point where he's ready to overturn a prosecutor's decision, if that's what it takes).

But it was to CTV that he was probably most candid.

"At one point," he told the program W5, "people are going to have to realize that maybe I know what I'm doing."

Or not. On the evidence of the past few weeks, I'm thinking not.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-trudeaus-liberals-are-disappointed-in-a-leader-found-wanting-but-hes-still-their-best-shot-at-re-election

John Ivison: Liberals are disappointed in a leader ‘found wanting,' but Trudeau still has a way out of crisis
Nothing will be the same again for Trudeau. The spell has been broken and the idea that he could be a one-term wonder is no longer implausible

John Ivison	

March 5, 2019 6:10 PM EST

The Liberal Party's impulse to form a circular firing squad has created a moment in Canada's political history that could change everything.

What John Stuart Mill called "the deep slumber of decided opinion" has been disrupted and the public roused. The sense that Justin Trudeau was pre-destined to be prime minister for as long as he wished has been shaken and it is entirely conceivable that he loses the election seven months from now.

<snip>

There is a belief that the cabinet is united behind a prime minister who spent much of the afternoon discussing options for future action. But, if cabinet has expressed support for Trudeau, caucus is restive.

One senior MP, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the overriding mood is of disappointment in the prime minister's leadership. "The caucus is united in a desire to get re-elected. It is not necessarily united in a desire to be elected behind him," they said.

Another MP said Trudeau should survive this storm, "but not without damage."

There are no signs of a leadership challenge - yet. The question the prime minister must mull is: for how long?

<snip>

Nothing will bury this story but if this prime minister is going to survive, he has to send public opinion back into a deep slumber. That would rule out booting Philpott and Wilson-Raybould from caucus, which would lead to a media feeding frenzy.

The public mood may get worse before it gets better. Editorial cartoonists have portrayed Wilson-Raybould as Tank Man, the Chinese student who stood in front of a column of tanks during the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989.

<snip>

Butts and Wernick are going to have to be persuasive if they are going to sway public opinion from the former justice minister's narrative, which many Canadians have taken as gospel.

More importantly for the Liberals, Trudeau needs to demonstrate to his caucus and the country that he can handle a crisis he has helped to agitate.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/05/why-does-trudeau-seem-to-be-always-caught-off-guard.html

Why does Trudeau seem to be always caught off guard?

By Susan DelacourtNational Columnist

Tues., March 5, 2019

In a rollicking couple of months filled with surprise developments for Justin Trudeau, one enduring question lingers - why does the prime minister keep being surprised?

<snip>

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/could-the-liberal-caucus-turf-justin-trudeau-if-they-wanted-maybe-but-not-easily

Could the Liberal caucus turf Justin Trudeau, if they wanted to? Maybe, but not easily

Here's a breakdown of how the Liberals could theoretically turf Trudeau, why it's so complicated, and how other countries do it differently

Maura Forrest

March 5, 2019 7:38 PM EST

OTTAWA - Since Jane Philpott's resignation from cabinet on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's remaining ministers have rallied around him, declaring he still has their support.

Many backbench MPs have also said they still have faith in the prime minister, despite the fallout from the SNC-Lavalin controversy.

Still, there are some rumblings of uncertainty. On Tuesday morning, Toronto Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith told the CBC that he wants to hear more about the kind of pressure that was brought to bear on former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to negotiate an agreement with the Quebec engineering giant that would have avoided a criminal prosecution on corruption charges. "If in the end it's found that the intervention was made for naked partisan gain and electoral gain, then that would cause me to lose some confidence," he said.

"I will say this inquiry is not complete, and I can imagine a situation where if it winds up in one place I'll be very happy to run again, and if it winds up in another place, I may well find myself as a lawyer again instead."

<snip>

Trudeau gives his best explanation of everything ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnTMK-ykZPk


----------



## Remius (6 Mar 2019)

Good links Loachman.


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Mar 2019)

Thanks Loachman.


----------



## Remius (6 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Did you notice Loachman posted that article link 2 hours ago?



I did not.  I'll remove it.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2019)

Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Chief Bill Wilson

Chief Judy Wilson, chief of the Neskonlith Indian Band in B.C, the secretary-treasury of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC)

I know that Bill Wilson is Ms Jody Wilson-Raybould's father.

Does anyone know if there is any relationship to Chief Judy Wilson?


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2019)

If you want to follow what Butts is telling the committee, CPAC's Twitter feed continues to give good gems via CPAC's reporter on the scene ...


> Liberal @R_Boissonnault asks @gmbutts why PMO kept speaking to @Puglaas on SNC-Lavalin if her decision was already made. Butts repeats that he was not aware that she had made a decision on the matter.
> 
> Was there a concerted effort within PMO to make @Puglaas change her mind? "No," says @gmbutts. He says it is "inconceivable" to him that Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard would engage in such behaviour, describing them as "sterling" lawyers.
> 
> ...



#DenyDeflect

*** - Remember that "remember vs. recall" thing?


----------



## daftandbarmy (6 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> If you want to follow what Butts is telling the committee, CPAC's Twitter feed continues to give good gems via CPAC's reporter on the scene ...
> #DenyDeflect
> 
> *** - Remember that "remember vs. recall" thing?



She made notes. He didn't. Guess who I'm more inclined to believe?


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> She made notes. He didn't. Guess who I'm more inclined to believe?


You're far from alone ...

Also, the attached is making the rounds of social media as well (this happened with others, too - see second attachment - while nobody asked JWR to swear in according to the official transcript) -- here's what "the rules" say:


> ... *Swearing-in of Witnesses*
> 
> A witness appearing before a committee may be required to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation; however, under normal circumstances, witnesses are not sworn in. The decision as to the swearing-in of witnesses is entirely at the discretion of the committee. A witness who refuses to be sworn in might face a charge of contempt. Likewise, the refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not. In addition, witnesses who lie under oath may be charged with perjury.
> 
> (...)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2019)

Not putting Butts under oath is a mistake on the grit's part. It brings untruthful coverup into play. The old 'If you did nothing wrong, there's no need to be worried' goes both ways. If not taken or a refusal to take it, it looks like they're spinning it and hiding things.

Even under oath, I don't think Butts is capable of telling the truth. Like many, I'll just assume everything he is doing is to cover his buddy's ass. Whether that's legal or, possibly, illegal activity. I don't think he's aware of the difference.


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Jody Wilson-Raybould.
> 
> Chief Bill Wilson
> 
> ...



They seem to be from different tribes; apparently Canada decided to give them all 'good Christian names' at some point in the 1800s so that's why there are a lot of unrelated people with the same name.  Here's a link talking about the Indian Naming Act. https://www.ictinc.ca/indian-act-naming-policies

As an aside, that's yet another pretty messed up part of colonization. Reading the reconciliation report really undercut a lot of what I thought about Canada as a country, so look at things with a lot more grey now.  Embarrassed as a Canadian that there are so many reservations without potable water, while the GoC pisses away billions on things that don't matter.


----------



## Haggis (6 Mar 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> She made notes. He didn't. Guess who I'm more inclined to believe?



It will come down to who _sounds_ more credible on the evening newscasts.  Wernick's testimony can be expected to shore up Butts while undermining JWR.


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-drop-the-poses-trudeau-you-owe-this-country-a-real-explanation

Rex Murphy: Drop the poses Trudeau. You owe this country a real explanation

Don’t talk fatuously of the 'bigger picture.' There is no bigger picture than whether you are morally entitled to govern

Rex Murphy	

March 5, 2019 6:08 PM EST

Fortuna, the wayward goddess, has abandoned her dalliance with Justin Trudeau. What he wins from here on, if he wins at all, will be on his own work, not her flippant favour.

The socks and the selfies are inert now, those props are dated, all their quaint magic gone. Even the rolled-up sleeves and the loosely knotted tie (his let’s-all-get-to-work look) come over now as a parody of the posing politician, the silk-vest patrician at the steel plant vainly affecting to identify with the sweating hard hats on the shop floor.

None of it is working anymore. The familiar gestures are all too self-conscious, the slogans dated and flaccid, the whole play-acting schtick is dead and worse - boring. And the speeches! Monday night’s in Toronto (to launch the election-year global-warming roadshow during a -19C cold alert ) verged on the manic; parts of the opening in particular were something you might have heard in the ancient Sunday morning revivalists’ broadcasts back in the Dark Ages of early television, Jimmy Swaggart or Garner Ted Armstrong raging against the darkness. It was eerie.

The two-minute concessionary acknowledgment of Jane Philpott’s resignation was insultingly perfunctory, swaddled in all the usual pompousness of “diversity” and “listening to other views,” utterly out of touch with the gravity and import of her departure, and the moral indictment of his government in which she framed it.

Here’s where we are. After these two key resignations, on a principle as central as the rule of law, after accusations that he and his administration wished to bend or break that rule of law, Mr. Trudeau has either to drop out altogether, or, start acting like the full man, and directly, without intermediaries, face the challenge that confronts his government.

Drop the poses. Choke off the slogans and pieties. Leave the jacket on. Sit down and speak to Canadians in detail on the moral and legal questions these two most serious ministers have put to him. Cut the theatricals. Don’t talk fatuously of the “bigger picture.” There is no bigger picture than whether you are morally entitled to govern.

Drop, too, the jobs cloak. There are too many unbuilt pipelines and an entire region that has been shedding jobs by the tens of thousands, while your government was writing Bill C-69, dancing at global-warming summits aimed at shutting down the oil industry, and writing new hymns to job-killing carbon taxes, for you now to pose as a job creator, and to shamelessly posit that saving SNC-Lavalin’s jobs was worth mauling the rule of law.

Ms. Philpott’s exercise of her choice is, in its way, even more explosive than Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould’s. The latter was harassed over months; she was the focus and centre of the pressure campaign to desert her responsibilities as attorney general. The impact on her was direct. All that pressure, the special pleading and the veiled threats could understandably colour her judgment. Not to say, actually, that they did - but as a postulate, let us consider that.

But then we come to Ms. Philpott, arguably (pace Chrystia Freeland) the most adult, accomplished, unabrasive minister in Trudeau’s entire cabinet, welcomed in the early days as a lustrous ornament to his “new way of doing politics” and regarded since her arrival and service in many portfolios as singularly efficient and superbly competent.

This is the woman who resigned yesterday. Not some whining, marginal backbencher, with far less talent than ego, nursing a grudge over getting passed by.

Ms. Philpott, in one manner of speaking, was outside the contest, but being in cabinet, having been there when Ms. Wilson-Raybould presented to it, and to caucus - we may presume she’s heard the full tale. And having heard it, both sides, she concludes she has to resign; that the price (too high) for staying in this cabinet after what has been done to Jody Wilson-Raybould, is the sacrifice of her personal integrity and a scar on her conscience.

Philpott’s resignation, intrinsically linked to the case made by Wilson-Raybould, is a bolt of winter lightning to the central nervous system of the Trudeau government.

Does anyone in the Prime Minister’s Office now actually believe that hauling out the knackered horse of climate change, placing Catherine McKenna in its tendentious, preachy saddle to tag-team with Justin, is going to - in that woeful cliché - change the channel?

If they do, they are delusional. They haven’t just drunk the Kool-Aid, they’ve poured it in the hot tub first, had a full splash-bathe-and-back-rub, and drunk the leavings.

I have a thought. Seeing what remains of their commitments to changing the voting system, abandoning omnibus bills, being open and transparent, remaining dedicated to the rule of law, unlocking Alberta’s oil - seeing where the Trudeau government is on all of these abandoned/mismanaged files - why should anyone think that even on its golden child of an issue, climate change, it is really any more serious or committed than on any of the others? Climate change might just be the last big pose.

A word on Gerry Butts’ longed-for appearance Wednesday morning: Why is Gerry Butts appearing? He doesn’t even work there anymore. Why all this drama for an ex-employee when the CEO is still on the premises - and he’s the one, the only one, who has all the answers.

Gerry is of course welcome to come by later. Enough for now though with the surrogates and deputies. Two serious women of unsullied integrity, who committed their fortunes to joining your government, have told the public that morally they could stay no longer.

Mr. Trudeau owes them the courtesy of an answer, and the country of which he is the prime minister, a candid and complete accounting.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-other-guys-suck-is-not-a-campaign-platform/

The SNC-Lavalin affair has reduced the Liberals to a risky strategem: betting their opponents are a bigger turn-off than they are

by Jason Markusoff  Mar 5, 2019

Monday afternoon’s cabinet resignation by Jane Philpott plunged Justin Trudeau deeper into the most rapidly festering crisis of his government’s term. On Monday evening, Trudeau sought refuge by time-travelling back to the fall of 2015, when he was pluckily racing from third place to first, and when SNC-Lavalin was still a bribery-marred infrastructure giant that at least didn’t help create existential problems for his political career.

Here was slightly retro Trudeau, now Prime Minister but still with red tie loosened under an open collar button, white sleeves rolled up just so. He offered platitudes about hard work in a voice that was home-stretch hoarse. He even ended his rally speech the same was as in days of yore: “Let’s go knock doors because we know better is always possible!”

Sure, Trudeau touched the fresh departure of a second cabinet minister, and even laid hints at a strategic change of tone in his scattershot defence of this messy affair. But he quickly dispensed with those lines in favour of a nascent stump speech. “At the same time, my friends, we need to keep in mind the bigger picture behind this fantastic movement we have built, and continue to build.” At this event, his focus was mainly on the Liberal climate change plan as a point of sharp contrast with Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, whose approach to climate change remains unknown. “The first thing he’d do as Prime Minister is make pollution free again,” Trudeau said, cuing up the partisans’ boo-hiss-shame.

<snip>

They may try to wave off this political quagmire and transport back to a time when Trudeau lacked such grim ethical baggage. They may prefer a straight head-to-head with Scheer on policy (and dismiss Jagmeet Singh’s NDP entirely, in part to depict 2019’s election as a binary choice).The Liberals did, after all, survive the first election after the sponsorship scandal with a minority (2004) and were leading in the polls through much of the second one (2006) before losing to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. But that was only after Paul Martin had replaced Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister who presided over that ugly bout of grift-and-graft. In today’s scandal, barring future developments, the person at the top of the Liberal ticket has been personally fingered as responsible.

Trudeau is clearly aiming to make this election heavily about the planet’s future and climate change. But on its face, this strategem also seems fraught. First, because the Conservatives seem content to make this fall’s vote a referendum on the carbon tax. Second, because voters who will think first and foremost about the climate might also gulp anxiously about a political party that bought an oil pipeline project. Third, because the most slogan-like line from last night’s speech - “It’s 2019, and if you don’t have a plan for climate change, then you don’t have a plan for the economy and you certainly don’t have a plan for Canada’s future” - may last only until Scheer actually brings forth some sort of plan. And then, Trudeau might be reduced to debating details, not putting his own imperfect plan up against a void.

Trudeau’s team also seems to want to shrug off ethical choices on their leader’s part yet hammer Scheer on his. His speech at last month’s multi-purpose rally of western truckers who want pipelines and, toxically, don’t want certain immigrants seems to now be at the centre of that argument. “There are a number of people who are incredibly worried that we are going to lose the progress that we have made and we are going to see a government that is led by an individual who has coddled Yellow Vesters,” Toronto MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith told CBC on Tuesday.

Certainly, problematic links to xenophobes and problematic trampling over prosecutorial independence are separate, hard-to-compare concerns. But these are, it seems, the alternatives voters will have to reckon with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/justin-trudeaus-rise-to-power-seemed-charmed-now-he-faces-a-fight-for-his-political-life/2019/03/05/19db9ae0-3f60-11e9-85ad-779ef05fd9d8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f078abaf008d

Justin Trudeau’s rise to power seemed charmed. Now he faces a fight for his political life.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rose to power as a press-whispering, selfie-snapping progressive icon who promised transparency and went viral for promoting women. 

But after four years in the spotlight, Trudeau’s government faces accusations of shady brokering and backroom bullying, of sexism and hypocrisy. Though Trudeau has tried to defend his government’s actions, he seems, suddenly, at a loss for words - at least the right ones.

Former members of his cabinet are speaking out. The press is having a field day. Maclean’s, a national magazine, ran a cover with picture of a grinning Trudeau and the words, “The Imposter,” in all caps. Foreign Policy asked whether Canada’s “golden boy” has lost his shine.

The scope of the scandal is such that many Canadians are wondering if he will hold on to his majority government in the upcoming election.

Whatever happens, Trudeau’s rock star status seems like a thing of the past.

“The problem is that this particular scandal goes to his carefully crafted image,” said Christopher Sands, director of the Center for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington.

<snip>

Nik Nanos, a Canadian pollster, said it was unusual to see Trudeau’s usually savvy team struggle to reshape the narrative. “They have been on the defensive almost daily,” he said. “We have only really heard one side of the story, plus little snippets from the prime minister.”

That may change. On Wednesday, Butts will deliver testimony, giving the government a chance to lay out what happened on its end.  

His challenge, analysts said, will be to defend Trudeau’s handling of the case without appearing to undermine two highly respected women.

If he takes a combative rather than a conciliatory approach, Butts risks alienating the voters who helped Trudeau win office. 

Sands said Trudeau’s treatment of Wilson-Raybould, particularly the demotion, made him look like an “angry male boss.”

To survive, he will need to set a new tone, he said. “I think he grovels his way out of it, maybe.”

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2930/fed-horserace-march-2019/

Conservatives Leading Over Liberal March 4, 2019 @ 4:54 PM

If an election were held today, Conservatives would secure majority

Toronto, March 5th - In a random sampling of public opinion taken by The Forum Poll™ among 1301 Canadian voters, with those decided and leaning, 4 in 10 (42%) say they would support the Conservatives, with a third (33%) saying they would support the Liberals.

1 in 10 (12%) say they would support the NDP, with a few (5%) supporting the Green Party, BQ (3%), or the People’s Party of Canada (4%), or another party (1%).

Respondents most likely to support the Conservatives include those who live in the Prairies (Alberta 69%), males (53%), between the ages of 35-44 (47%), and the most wealthy (49%).

Respondents most likely to say they support the Liberals include those who live in the Atlantic region (55%), those between the ages of 45 to 54 (36%), 55 to 64 (36%), and 65 and over (37%), females (41%), those earning $20k-$40k (38%) or $40k-$60k (41%), and those with post-graduate degrees (43%).

If an election were held today, these results suggest the Conservatives would win a majority government of 185 seats. The Liberals would serve as the official opposition with 129 seats. The NDP would secure 18, the BQ 5, and the Greens 1.

<snip>

When asked if Canada is doing better or worse than it was 4 years ago, over half stated it was worse (BTM2: 59%), with a third (35%) saying it’s much worse. 4-in-10 respondents (TOP2: 41%) say it is better, with about 1 in 10 (13%) saying it’s much better.

<snip>


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Not putting Butts under oath is a mistake on the grit's part. It brings untruthful coverup into play. The old 'If you did nothing wrong, there's no need to be worried' goes both ways. If not taken or a refusal to take it, it looks like they're spinning it and hiding things.


That can be a two-edged sword, too, though.  Is anybody believing JWR any less because nobody asked her to swear in and she didn't offer to?  Good for the goose ...  Besides, the rules say he can be dinged with Contempt of Parliament if he's found to be lying -- I'm suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure that'll happen, right?  :rofl:

Meanwhile, for more tea-leaf reading, here's a text of Butts' opening statement.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Meanwhile, for more tea-leaf reading, here's a text of Butts' opening statement.



Too pat. If you believe Butts, I have swamp land to get rid of. :rofl:


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Too pat.


... and you're being kind


----------



## TCM621 (6 Mar 2019)

One thing jumped out at me while reading a new story on Butts' testimony. According to the National Post, Butts remarked, "_ ask you whether or not that is in keeping with my character to do such a thing".

Recently, I was listening to Dr. Phil on Joe Rogan's podcast. For those who don't know, before Dr. Phil became a TV celebrity he worked in litigation as a consultant, often on deception detection. This is actually how he met Oprah. He mentioned that a common theme of people who are lying is to appeal to their character, "You know me, does that sound like me?". This isn't definitive by any stretch of the imagination but it is more food for thought. 

Personally, the fact he was a big part of the McGuinty government as his principal secretary doesn't speak well of his character._


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Mar 2019)

Listening to Wernick speak, I'm starting to think that the role of the AG is not the only role that needs critical review for independence.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (6 Mar 2019)

Butts is the architect of Ontario's Green Energy Plan. He hailed himself far and wide as the single, most important guy that made it happen, all by himself. 

Until it started coming apart, then he blamed everyone else and stopped taking credit.


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Mar 2019)

He's definitely the guy most responsible for ruining the rural landscape of Ontario by saturating farmland with grotesque orchards of windmills.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> He's definitely the guy most responsible for ruining the rural landscape of Ontario by saturating farmland with grotesque orchards of windmills.



And they are grotesque....driving up Highway 10 to Shelburne is a visual nightmare.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2019)

Wernick -



> ...Like the former Minister, I have sought legal advice about what I can and cannot say today. I have been advised not to opine on the Minister’s reasoning or state of mind because *some of the issues are or will be before the Courts.*



Is anybody aware of any information in the public domain to suggest that this matter is or will be before the Courts?  Do I hear an echo of the PM's pronouncements prior to the VAdm Norman case?



> Finally, the Committee may wish to hold hearings on the Attorney General of Canada’s Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples, issued by the former Attorney General on January 11, 2019. The Directive to all Government of Canada litigators could mark a profound change in Canada’s legal landscape. *However, it could be repealed or gutted at the stroke of a pen and turn to ashes. *All political parties now need to be clear with Canadians on the future of this Directive.



I don't sense any overt threat there, nor any personal animus, "Jus' business!"


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2019)

I am enjoying the evolution of the word "truth".

There is "Truth" and there is "perception and opinion".  Who and what are you going to believe? 

Experts or the court of public opinion.


----------



## Czech_pivo (6 Mar 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> And they are grotesque....driving up Highway 10 to Shelburne is a visual nightmare.



Try driving west of Chatham into Windsor.....its hard enough going back to Windsor, the dozens of windmills as far as the eye can see along the 401 doesn't make it any easier.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Is anybody aware of any information in the public domain to suggest that this matter is or will be before the Courts?


Well, SNC's lawyered up, JWR's lawyered up, and it sounds like a final decision hasn't been made re:  SNC's prosecution, so _maybe_ he meant "could be in the courts".  Or his legal beagles are being cautious in their advice to him.  Or who knows what civil litigation lurks hinted at in the background?
op:


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, SNC's lawyered up, JWR's lawyered up, and it sounds like a final decision hasn't been made re:  SNC's prosecution, so _maybe_ he meant "could be in the courts".  Or his legal beagles are being cautious in their advice to him.  Or who knows what civil litigation lurks hinted at in the background?
> op:





> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.


  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2019)

Joking aside, I wonder if the Good Clerk is getting his cases confused....




> Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyer is threatening to call Gerald Butts and Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick to testify in open court if they don't produce a series of documents that she says are essential to defend her client.
> 
> Lawyer Marie Henein issued the ultimatum during a brief pre-trial hearing on Wednesday even as Butts, who recently resigned as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's top aide, was testifying before a House of Commons committee on the SNC-Lavalin affair.
> 
> *Henein noted that she has been fighting since October for records from the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, including with subpoenas last month for Trudeau's, Butts's and Wernick's emails, BlackBerry messages and other communications*.



https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vice-admiral-mark-norman-s-lawyer-threatens-to-call-butts-wernick-to-stand-1.4324614

Curious how hard it has been for the Mr. Butts to recover information on the Norman case vs how quickly he has been able to recover information on the Lavalin case.



> Mercedes Stephenson
> ‏
> Verified account
> 
> ...





> Mercedes Stephenson
> ‏
> Verified account
> 
> ...





> Mercedes Stephenson
> ‏
> Verified account
> 
> ...



Apparently Butts's legal counsel is the Liberal Party counsel.



> Mercedes Stephenson Retweeted
> 
> David Akin  🇨🇦
> ‏
> ...






> Mercedes Stephenson Retweeted
> 
> David Akin  🇨🇦
> ‏
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Joking aside, I wonder if the Good Clerk is getting his cases confused....


You only _JUST_ beat me to sharing the TorSun version of this one  :rofl:


			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Apparently Butts's legal counsel is the Liberal Party counsel.


Political position = political cover


----------



## dapaterson (6 Mar 2019)

I am, at heart, a seven year old.  Thus every time I read the name of the individual who resigned, my mind always goes to the same place.


----------



## dapaterson (6 Mar 2019)

Jen Gerson has a wonderful opinion piece in the NY Times



> There is a particularly quaint element to Canada — our smallness, our politeness, our insularity — that makes many people, including many Canadians, assume the best about our country and ourselves. As if these qualities make us inherently purer than other, more populous countries.
> 
> It’s true that Canadians are a trusting, generous lot who generally believe in the greater good, institutions and the rule of law. Consequently, the country is prone to imagining itself more bound by a mythology of its own goodness than it actually is. But there’s a darker side to Canada’s smallness. Our tiny network of political, business and intellectual elite is insular and concentrated.
> 
> ...



https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/opinion/canada-scandal-justin-trudeau.html


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2019)

Other curiousities from today



> Vassy Kapelos
> ‏
> Verified account
> 
> ...





> Vassy Kapelos Retweeted
> 
> Steven Chase
> ‏
> ...








Apparently JWR's testimony is that she communicated her decision on the SNC matter, closing the file in her mind, on Sept 17 in conversation with the Prime Minister.

Judging from Butts's testimony the PM failed to communicate the decision to his Clerk or the PMO



> Vassy Kapelos
> ‏
> Verified account
> 
> ...



In my view Drouin's testimony marches with JWR's 


Vassy Kapelos Twitter Feed Summary 


Drouin says she talked to JWR by phone on Sept 5, SNC discussed on the margins. Agreed dept would provide advice on role of AG in this matter. #cdnpoli

Drouin says she provided this advice. Says it would be very important for the AG to be comfortable with the DPP's decision. AG entitled to receive as much info as necessary from the DPP.

Drouin says she spoke with DM of Finance, who had questions about role of AG. Drouin says she provided draft opinion to AG's office Sept 8th.

Drouin says first face to face meeting with JWR was Sept 17, later she says on Sept 18 they debrief JWR convo with PM. JWR tells Drouin she's uncomfortable with content of conversation.

Drouin: after Sept 19, I didn't have any further involvement on file with JWR and staff. 2 exceptions: Oct 19: judicial review of DPP decision filed, near end of Oct Privy Council office asked for dept advice on impact of SNC if DPA not pursued - advice not provided bc minister


[/quote]


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2019)

So

Sept 4 - DPP Roussel informs retired SCC Justice Iacobucci, acting for SNC-Lavalin of her decision on a Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Sept 5 - AG/Justice Minister JWR mentions the SNC-Lavalin issue to her DM of Justice, Drouin in a telephone call about other matters.  JWR requests advice on her role as AG in this matter and DM agrees to have that advice supplied.  DM of Finance Paul Rochon (?) "who had questions about role of AG".

Sept 8 - DM Justice Drouin provides draft opinion on AG's SNC role to AG JWR

Sept 17 - (Busy Day)
            - DM Drouin has first face to face with AG JWR on SNC
            - AG JWR informs PM Trudeau of her decision to stand behind her DPP Roussel.
            - SNC sends letter to office of DPP Roussel

Sept 18 - AG JWR and DM Drouin meet and discuss the Sept 17 meeting between AG JWR and PM Trudeau (Edit - Clerk of PCO Wernick in attendance).  JWR informs Drouin she was uncomfortable with the conversation with the PM.
            - SNC emails the office of DPP Roussel

Sept 19 - (My sense is that as of this date AG JWR and her department considered the matter closed)  Edit - AG JWR informs her DM Drouin that she had just had a discussion with Wernick, the matter was closed and not to discuss the matter with the DPP.

Sept 27 - Iacobucci, on behalf of SNC, submits additional documentation to the office of DPP Roussel

Oct 1 - Quebec Provincial Election

Oct 9 - Office of the DPP rejects SNC requests for face-to-face between the DPP and the CEO of SNC and informs SNC that the prosecution will proceed to preliminary inquiry on Oct 29

Oct 19 - Judicial Review of DPP decision filed

Oct 29 - SNC preliminary enquiry scheduled.

"near end of Oct" - "Privy Council office (Wernick)  asked for dept advice on impact of SNC if DPA not pursued" 
                         - "advice not provided bc (because of) minister (AG JWR - aka Minister of Justice"


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Not putting Butts under oath



I wouldn't expect anything less from PM Trudeau and the PMO  :rofl:

It's such a shit show. You'd have to be willfully ignorant or daft not to see exactly whats going on. I bet the Liberals are being just as unethical with the Norman case.


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Listening to Wernick speak, I'm starting to think that the role of the AG is not the only role that needs critical review for independence.



Somewhere in the myriad posted articles, there is mention of this problem.

I believe that he is covering off three jobs, at least two of which, and possibly all three, are in conflict and really need to be separated.

Clerk of the Privy Council is one, Public Service boss is another, can't remember the third.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Mar 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Somewhere in the myriad posted articles, there is mention of this problem.
> 
> I believe that he is covering off three jobs, at least two of which, and possibly all three, are in conflict and really need to be separated.
> 
> Clerk of the Privy Council is one, Public Service boss is another, can't remember the third.



Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister?

A further indication of the wind turning:  Trudeau has lost Neil MacDonald



> ...He and his ministers are capable of answering nearly any question with some vow of support for "the middle class and those who are working so hard to join it," an annoyingly meaningless phrase that's become a banner for his government.
> 
> In any case, this *verbal porridge*, delivered with a serene smile, *has carried him along*. Until now.
> 
> With his government sinking into a self-inflicted crisis,* it's beginning to appear that Justin Trudeau simply doesn't have the intellectual acuity to cope.*...



And meanwhile -  in the curiousities file:

Michael Wernick on wearing a wire....



> In his second appearance before the committee, Mr Wernick denied the accusation: "I made no threats to the attorney general, period."
> 
> But when pressed on whether he said things to her like "(Mr Trudeau) will find a way to get it done one way or another", Mr Wernick said he could not recall.
> 
> "I wasn't wearing a wire," he said by way of explanation.



https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47409909

The response was considered laughably disrespectful by the Committee


----------



## observor 69 (6 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I wouldn't expect anything less from PM Trudeau and the PMO  :rofl:
> 
> It's such a crap show. You'd have to be willfully ignorant or daft not to see exactly whats going on. I bet the Liberals are being just as unethical with the Norman case.



"Before beginning to speak, the Liberal majority on the committee voted down a Conservative motion for Butts to be sworn in to testify under oath.

Conservative MP Michael Cooper tried in vain to have Butts sworn in, but he was told the committee had spoken.

“I will tell the truth,” Butts told the committee as he started his opening statement."

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/the-latest-butts-wernick-testify-at-justice-committee-on-snc-lavalin-affair


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Mar 2019)

I like the shovel and pick lapel pin for Butts, however a hammer and sickle might be more appropriate.


----------



## Halifax Tar (6 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I like the shovel and pick lapel pin for Butts, however a hammer and sickle might be more appropriate.



I noticed that too, is there significance to that ?  I thought about a homage to his coal mining roots in CB maybe ?


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 Mar 2019)

Turns out it’s worthy of national news: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/put-a-pin-in-it-did-you-notice-what-butts-wernick-wore-on-their-lapels-at-the-snc-lavalin-hearing


----------



## Navy_Pete (6 Mar 2019)

Wow, kind of feel this is almost an inept enough handling of the situation to be a satire.

Butts was _Edited to remove adjectives contrary to the posting in the political thread guidelines_ (and exactly the kind of  bureaucrabro policy wonk you expect to find in the PMO, ADM, or DM offices). Think he would have been better not volunteering to testify as he was not credible.  Wernick came off as a _Edited to remove adjectives contrary to the posting in the political thread guidelines_, but glad MP Raitt is on the committee.

This is the most unconvincing whitewashing I've seen outside of a Britcom, brutal.  They are a cunning plan away from being a Blackadder plot.

Still not Brexit parliament dysfunctional, but this story is all over the UK press too.  Think there was an article posted already, but there is a pretty funny opinion piece in the Guardian about watching Trudeau get hit by this is like watching a unicorn get run over by a car.


----------



## Jarnhamar (6 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Turns out it’s worthy of national news: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/put-a-pin-in-it-did-you-notice-what-butts-wernick-wore-on-their-lapels-at-the-snc-lavalin-hearing



Lame and greasy theatrics. All that's missing was a photo of the PMs socks.


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-imagine-trudeaus-befuddlement-as-his-brightest-recruits-threaten-his-demise

Chris Selley: Imagine Trudeau's befuddlement as his brightest recruits threaten his demise

These clearly aren’t the politicians we’re used to. Perhaps having mistaken a slogan for a credo, they’re actually doing politics differently

Chris Selley	

March 5, 2019 1:27 AM EST

<snip>

We’ve become inured to it: To enter politics behind the scenes is to check your principles, if any, at reception. To enter it as a member of a legislature is all but to consent to lobotomy. Never mind your degrees and your doorstop of a CV: A warren of far-too-intense 23-year-old weirdos has written talking points for you and, damn it, you’re going to read them.

This is what makes the resignations from cabinet of successful lawyer Jody Wilson-Raybould and, on Monday, successful family doctor Jane Philpott so stunning. One can understand the PMO’s frustration as it explained the thousands of jobs implicated in a potential conviction for SNC-Lavalin, only to be rebutted with something as arcane as “the rule of law.” But at least they could badmouth the not-universally-popular Wilson-Raybould to friendly reporters. One can scarcely imagine the PMO’s befuddlement when the all-but-universally-respected Philpott decided she couldn’t be associated with it any longer. Does this woman not know what’s at stake?

Indeed, the “it’s them or Andrew Scheer” desperation among Liberal partisans reached a new crescendo on Monday. Maybe Wilson-Raybould and Philpott realize that’s not actually the dividing line between civilization and Thunderdome that the Liberals would have us believe. Or maybe they realize that sacrificing one’s principles is not excused when negative consequences are indicated. Some would argue that’s the only time when sticking to them really matters.

Either way, these clearly aren’t the politicians we’re used to. Perhaps having mistaken a slogan for a credo, they’re actually doing politics differently. “When you add women, please do not expect the status quo,” Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes, who’s not running in 2019, tweeted on Monday after Philpott’s resignation. “Expect us to make correct decisions, stand for what is right and exit when values are compromised.”

That is just savagely on point. If nothing else, Trudeau can hang his hat on some very talented recruits. It’s entirely fitting they are now making life miserable for this simpering charlatan of a prime minister.

_Edit to remove inappropriate emphasis of part of the article text._


----------



## Loachman (6 Mar 2019)

Bourque News Watch has been up for more years than I can remember. I usually check it first thing in the morning and again in the evening.

http://www.bourque.com/nates.html

Natterings @ Nate's

Wednesday, March 6

Trudeau mulls resignation
A well-known Trudeau insider pops into Nate's to grab some takeout. With Butts this morning, then Wernick this aft, it's been a long, long, long day.

While he's waiting for his smoked meat platter with extra fat, bucket of slaw, quiver of pickle spears, and meddley of verenekas & latkes, a pal who's been there in the trenches with the team walks up. Let's call him Mike, it doesn't matter. The other guy, the insider, shall remain nameless. It is best that way.

Mike asks the obvious, "so, how's it going ?"

Nameless furrows his brow. He really doesn't want to get into it. But he knows he can't brush Mike off with a platitude. So he scans the room for danger. Sensing none, he relaxes a bit, exhales, and answers.

"Not good", says Nameless.

"That bad, eh", offers Mike.

"Worse", says Nameless.

Mike gets a bit closer, lowers his voice.

"How bad ?", he asks.

"Resignation is not out of the question", Nameless admits.

Mike is stunned. It's the last thing he expected to hear. But he holds out hope.

"Who's ?", he asks, "Telford ? Wernick ? The Bimbo Boys ?"

Nameless shrugs, waves an arm limply, then shakes his head.

"No, the boss", he admits.

Mike noisily lets out all the air in his lungs.He skips a beat, deflated.

"Wow". That's all he can offer up, stunned.

The takeout arrives at the counter, Nameless pays for it, waves at someone from Bluesky walking by, opens up his bag of food, pulls out the pickles, grabs one for himself, and offers one to Mike, who takes one to munch along with his pal. They both munch and crunch for a moment, and then Mike asks a question.

"So, is it a done deal ?"

"Can't say, I can't because I can't. And because there are a couple other options", says Nameless.

"Like what, for instance ?"

Nameless sucks on his pickle for a couple seconds.

"Well, for instance, like scorched earth."

"Scorched earth ?", Mike asks, "you mean more heads rolling ?"

"Maybe. Telford, Wernick, the Bimbo Boys. Maybe. A clean slate .. followed by a public repudiation of SNC-Lavalin by the PM and an apology to the nation for having let the nation down."

Mike is stunned to the point that he grabs for another pickle wedge without even being offered.

"Will that work .. or will that only fuel the scandal ?" It's a valid question and a valid concern. Mike knows that people come and go in politics and sometimes you need to dump those closest to you before the masses have your own head. It's the old adage that the people who got you to the PMO are not necessarily the people who keep you in the PMO.

Nameless looks unconvinced.

"That's the problem", he admits, "there is no insight into what impact that will have".

"So then what ?", asks Mike.

Nameless furrows his brow.

"Justin may take the blame and resign, it's the honourable out."

Mike is stunned, shocked, disillusioned.

"That's insane !"

Nameless shakes his head slowly. He fishes into his bag of food, pulls out the latkes, offers one to Mike, who takes one.

"We feel we are losing the public's trust", admits Nameless, as he takes a big bit out of his latke.

The two ponder the ramifications for a moment while they eat.

"If not Justin, then who will lead us into the election ?", Mike asks.

"We'd need an interim leader, a Herb Gray", says Nameless

Mike gives that some thought, then offers up some names.

"Garneau ? Goodale ? McGuinty ? Freeland ? Morneau ? Mckenna ?" Mike is right on some, but grasping at straws with others.

Nameless bobs his head left and right.

"Morneau is a non-starter, he's tainted by that secret French villa nonsense. And we think Freeland & McKenna would want to run for the leadership. Goodale & McGuinty would be great placeholders, but the inside line would go to Garneau. We'd want you on board to help make that happen, Mike. We wouldn't be able to make it happen without you"

Mike is flattered, but surprised at the foresight. He loves Garneau the way he loved Dryden back in the day. He's interested.

"I'm interested", he admits.

Nameless nods, then leans in. Mike can smell the garlic on his breath

"We don't know which way things will go. We may get Calgary Grit to do a focus group. There's also the idea we'll simply dig in, hunker down, fight back, and drag this scandal out as long as we can, keeping the status quo until the election in the fall. Rag the puck, so to speak."

Mike nods, does the zipper signal across his lips. Mum's the word.

"Wow", concludes Mike.

"I know", Nameless nods. It is what it is. At this point, there's not much else that can be added.

The two finish their latkes, then head for the exit.

Developing.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister?


 :nod:


----------



## Furniture (6 Mar 2019)

It appears Mrs Telford has deployed one of her Op-ed writers. 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/bob-hepburn-why-jody-wilson-raybould-is-no-hero/ar-BBUsKok?ocid=spartanntp


----------



## FJAG (6 Mar 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> It appears Mrs Telford has deployed one of her Op-ed writers.
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/bob-hepburn-why-jody-wilson-raybould-is-no-hero/ar-BBUsKok?ocid=spartanntp



I definitely agree. Nepburn has written one lame article here. 

 :trainwreck:


----------



## Stoker (6 Mar 2019)

Press conference tomorrow by the PM, perhaps he'll do the honorable thing...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-to-discuss-snc-lavalin-affair-in-thursday-morning-press-conference/ar-BBUt1Cn?li=AAggNb9


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2019)

> “Had everybody on the team done what the prime minister asked of them, then we would not be having this conversation today.”


  Gerry Butts per Marni Soupcoff


https://nationalpost.com/opinion/marni-soupcoff-butts-still-doesnt-understand-why-canadians-are-so-appalled?video_autoplay=true




> (Butts) was so mellow about the whole thing that it came as a bit of a shock when, towards the end of the question and answer period, he noted with what seemed like frustration and a hint of anger: “Had everybody on the team done what the prime minister asked of them, then we would not be having this conversation today.”
> 
> 
> Well, indeed.
> ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Mar 2019)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Press conference tomorrow by the PM, perhaps he'll do the honorable thing...
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-to-discuss-snc-lavalin-affair-in-thursday-morning-press-conference/ar-BBUt1Cn?li=AAggNb9



What will be get? 

The tears and sobbing pm (with a cleverly picked out lapel pin) saying sorry and he will stay on to make things right?

Or will he decide that the testimony put any thoughts of impropriety to bed and he's deciding Canada will move on ?


----------



## Haggis (7 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Or will he decide that the testimony put any thoughts of impropriety to bed and he's deciding Canada will move on ?



Given Wernick's clear irritation with having to testify, yet again, to others who just don't "get it" that nothing wrong was done, and Butt's bringing much needed clarity to a misunderstood "public policy issue", I think we'll see the "working man's PM", again stress that everything was done appropriately to protect Québec jobs and Canada's economy.  And he'll bring up the specter of "Harper's Conservatives" at least once.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Mar 2019)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Press conference tomorrow by the PM, perhaps he'll do the honorable thing...
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-to-discuss-snc-lavalin-affair-in-thursday-morning-press-conference/ar-BBUt1Cn?li=AAggNb9


... followed by a quick trip north ...


> Ottawa, Ontario
> 
> 7:45 a.m. The Prime Minster will deliver remarks, and hold a media availability.
> 
> ...


op:


----------



## Remius (7 Mar 2019)

Chief Engineer said:
			
		

> Press conference tomorrow by the PM, perhaps he'll do the honorable thing...
> 
> https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-to-discuss-snc-lavalin-affair-in-thursday-morning-press-conference/ar-BBUt1Cn?li=AAggNb9



maybe.  I would expect though that he would have informed his caucus first.  Without a caucus meeting before his press appearance I would not expect a resignation.  But who knows.


----------



## Loachman (7 Mar 2019)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-services-cabinet-shuffle-wilson-raybould-1.5045932

Trudeau's offer of Indigenous Services to Wilson-Raybould like 'asking Nelson Mandela to administer apartheid'
Social Sharing

B.C. regional chief says suggested move shows Trudeau favours symbolism over substance

Jorge Barrera CBC News Posted: Mar 06, 2019 6:59 PM ET

The prime minister's attempt to move Jody Wilson-Raybould to the Indigenous Services portfolio was a 'deeply humiliating' proposal and shows a lack of understanding and disconnect from First Nations' world view, say Indigenous leaders and analysts.   

Gerald Butts, the prime minister's former principal secretary, testified before the House of Commons justice committee Wednesday that the former cabinet minister was moved to Veterans Affairs from Justice after refusing to take on the Indigenous Services portfolio, and that the shuffle had nothing to do with her refusal to intervene on the SNC-Lavalin criminal prosecution.

It was concern over maintaining the reconciliation momentum that led Trudeau to move Wilson-Raybould from Justice to Indigenous Services, said Butts. 

Jane Philpott, who was an admired Indigenous Services minister, had to be moved to Treasury Board to replace the outgoing Scott Brison, and, in Trudeau's mind, Wilson-Raybould was the perfect fit to replace her, said Butts.

<snip>

Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute at Ryerson University, said he sees a sub-narrative embedded in Butts' testimony, along with Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick's statements before the committee earlier this month.

"They are, I think, framing Wilson-Raybould's resistance [to SNC-Lavalin intervention] as being wrapped up in her Indigenous politics," said King.

"This is a part of narrative that they are trying to package.... I think they are trying to convey to Canadians something here about trouble-making Indigenous people."

https://globalnews.ca/news/5029335/analysis-trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-about-politics/

March 6, 2019 9:43 pm

ANALYSIS: Despite protests from top Trudeau aide, Wilson-Raybould was right - SNC-Lavalin is about politics, not jobs

By David Akin

<snip>

The government that likes to tell you it's all about 'evidence-based policy' has no evidence that "a minimum of 9,000 jobs" were hanging in the balance. They've just been spitballing that number.

"Did you seek independent evidence or any evidence that there was a threat to jobs?" Green Party MP Elizabeth May asked Butts Wednesday. "Based on the 2018 audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin, they currently have $15 billion in back orders." She's right. "They have a very secure financial situation with gross revenues of $10 billion." She's right again.

"Is there any evidence that jobs were actually at stake by letting this go through the courts?" May asked Butts.

"I can't recall anything specific," Butts replied. He mumbled something about some briefings he got from the folks at the federal department of finance. These finance officials would be the same gang, one assumes, that once advised the Trudeau government it would be a good idea to raise taxes on small business owners like farmers, dentists, doctors, insurance brokers and so on because they were, after all, tax cheats. Once bitten, twice shy, I'd say, about any advice I got from the federal finance department.

In any event, Butts could not point to a single report, document, statistic, prognostication, or written record where someone said "a minimum of 9,000 jobs" was out the window if Wilson-Raybould did not do as encouraged.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-the-circus-comes-to-parliament-hill

Christie Blatchford: The circus comes to Parliament Hill

And there you have it. That's where the bar is. Easy to see who's above it, and who is not

Christie Blatchford	

March 6, 2019 8:10 PM EST

You know how, when the circus comes to town, or a big fair, it's always tricky deciding where to go first: The ferris wheel, or the games of chance? The haunted house, or the roller coaster? Cotton candy or the little doughnuts?

So it was with the justice committee Wednesday, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary Gerry Butts and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, in round two at the committee, duelled for the attention and regard of Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, as the PM is so fond of saying.

<snip>

Butts was shocked, he said.

Why, he'd never seen such a thing before. JWR said she had spent her life fighting the Indian Act and couldn't now be in charge of programs administered under it.

He gave his best advice to Trudeau, told him he couldn't allow a minister to dictate where she would or wouldn't go; that would lead to chaos. Thus, she was briefly moved to veterans affairs, from whence she resigned from cabinet.

<snip>

Anyway, he certainly accepts "that two people can experience the same event differently"; if ever you wondered where the PM's explanation of the Kokanee grope came from, you may now know.

<snip>

In reply to one of the committee's best questioners, Conservative Lisa Raitt, and after he'd referred to texts and messages he sent JWR or she him, Butts allowed that he "acquired the ability" through his lawyer to get access to his phone.

Compare that, if you will, to the accused former Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Mark Norman, whom this government is so avidly prosecuting. His lawyers have been asking for access to his emails and texts since October. Thus far, no access.

<snip>

When his toughest questioners dared interrupt him, Wernick pushed back. "Excuse me sir! Excuse me sir!" or appealed to the chair. At one point, he said, "I know many members (of the committee) said they believed every word" of JWR's testimony, and reminded them that "part of what she said was that nothing veered into criminal" conduct.

To which, the non-Liberal members of the committee cried, "That's the bar? It's not criminal?"

And there you have it. That's where the bar is. Easy to see who's above it, and who is not.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-it-was-wilson-rayboulds-decision-to-make-as-long-as-she-decided-it-their-way?video_autoplay=true

Andrew Coyne: It was Wilson-Raybould's decision to make, as long as she decided it their way

There's a way to sort this out: subpoena all communication on the subject between the players named. Sorry - the Liberal majority voted not to do so

More than once in the course of his testimony to the Commons justice committee Gerald Butts said that he was not there to call anyone names or to cast aspersions on the character of Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Which is why the prime minister's former principal secretary confined himself to depicting her as sloppy, closed-minded and unco-operative, while heavily implying the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada was a serial fabulist who said nothing to anyone about attempts to interfere with her authority over criminal prosecutions until after she was shuffled out of her "dream job" in January. Otherwise he might have gotten really nasty.

And yet he offered little that contradicted what she had earlier told the committee - that she was pressured to overrule the decision of the director of public prosecutions to proceed with charges of fraud and corruption against SNC-Lavalin, rather than to offer it the remediation agreement it had sought.

To be sure, on the specific charge against him, that he had told her chief of staff in a meeting on Dec. 18 that "there's no solution that doesn't involve some interference," he had "a very different recollection." Variations on that theme were to be heard later from the clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick, who had "no recollection" of a variety of statements attributed to him - that SNC-Lavalin would move its headquarters from Montreal if it did not get its way, or that something unfortunate might happen to her career if she kept crossing the prime minister.

<snip>

Just so, she was told: the decision was hers and hers alone to make. She was the "final decision-maker." Only the decision was also "never final." She could make it, that is, but she would have everyone from the prime minister on down coming back to her again and again - not because there was any fresh evidence, but just because they could - all the while implicitly questioning her judgment, in the sly form of that repeated suggestion that she seek an outside legal opinion.

This last is a distraction. The attorney general has available to her all the legal advice she requires. The only point of demanding she seek a second opinion was because they did not like the first. In any case, whether to seek outside advice is, again, the attorney general's decision to make, in the same way as it is her choice whether to seek the advice of her colleagues - as opposed to the unsolicited advice that Butts, Wernick and others were pressing upon her.

Ah, but if she felt this was interference, Butts wondered aloud, why didn't she tell anyone? If she had made up her mind, why didn't she say anything?

According to her testimony, she did: to the prime minister, at their Sept. 17 meeting ("I told him that I had done my due diligence and made up my mind on SNC"); to the clerk, at the same meeting; to the finance minister on Sept. 19 ("I told him that engagements from his office to mine on SNC had to stop - that they were inappropriate"); to Matthieu Bouchard and Elder Marques, officials in the PMO, on Nov. 22 ("I said NO. My mind had been made up and they needed to stop – enough"); and to Butts himself, on Dec. 5 ("I needed everyone to stop talking to me about SNC as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate").

Yet Butts told the committee he only learned that she considered her decision final during her testimony before the committee last week. Not only did he not recall her telling him, but neither the prime minister nor the clerk nor the finance minister nor the two PMO officials who reported to him breathed a word. Or was the problem, as he said at another point, that she did not tell the prime minister "in writing"?

Well, there's one way to sort this out: subpoena all emails, texts and other communication on the subject between the players named. Sorry - the Liberal majority on the committee voted not to do so. OK, then invite Wilson-Raybould back to testify, as Wernick was, and this time let her speak to the conversations surrounding her demotion from Justice - as Butts did at some length. No again, said the Liberal majority. Fine, well at least let's hear from some of the other players, starting with Bouchard and Marques. They are as yet not on the witness list.

On the other hand, the prime minister is reported to be weighing whether to make a statement of contrition. I suppose that will have to suffice.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-so-who-is-misremembering-butts-or-wilson-raybould?video_autoplay=true

Colby Cosh: So who is 'misremembering' - Butts or Wilson-Raybould?

Of course he does not mean to cast any aspersions on the former attorney general or dispute her account of events. No no no

Colby Cosh	

March 6, 2019 5:20 PM EST

<snip>

The Liberal government's SNC situation clearly has a traplike nature. Until the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin are heard in a trial and resolved, or until they are abandoned, the thing will remain news, and Liberals will suffer.

The government's line is that it was inappropriate for former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to make a final commitment to leaving her Director of Public Prosecutions alone and to living with the decision not to enter a plea-bargaining process with SNC-Lavalin. Her successor in the office, David Lametti, will not make such a commitment now. We will never get the reassurance of hearing that the matter is closed. The professed view of cabinet, what's left of it, is that it would be wrong to close it.

The government has tried to explain its belabouring of Wilson-Raybould as being perfectly appropriate. She was supposed to verrrry carefully consider the fate of 9,000 SNC-Lavalin jobs and a head office in Quebec, and then consider it again, and then consider it again. Butts tells us that they weren't looking for a particular politically convenient answer, mind you.

They just stayed after her to keep reconsidering the answer she kept giving, explicitly or implicitly. They reassured her at every turn that the decision was hers. And then they got rid of her and made it someone else's.

<snip>

But of course he does not mean to cast any aspersions on the former attorney general or dispute her factual account of events. No no no. Butts was not in a position to say in plain English that Wilson-Raybould had told untruths; that would look bad.

He is, whether he intends to, creating a pretext for Liberal surrogates in the media to say that Wilson-Raybould probably revised or obfuscated her memory of late 2018. Who knows who's telling the truth, really. But it looks like maybe Wilson-Raybould is bent on some kinda demented kamikaze revenge. Or maybe an undemocratic takeover of the Liberal party. See if we don't hear people saying all these things, and more.

In any events, the Butts story is that the January cabinet shuffle precipitated by Scott Brison's resignation was pure bad luck. Why Wilson-Raybould's position as justice minister would necessarily be involved in the shuffle at all was poorly explained. But Butts wants us to believe that the initial offer to transfer Wilson-Raybould to the Indigenous services ministry was actually a sign of the prime minister's high regard for her.

She balked, as an Indigenous person who did not want to be in the position of having anything to do with the Indian Act. This is a pretty common attitude, one might even say a prevalent one, among our First Nations. Butts admits he ought to have known that Wilson-Raybould might feel this way, although he does not say that the catastrophic aftereffects of the request - given that he and the PM couldn't just leave her the hell alone at Justice - were the reason he resigned. (Why not? It seems like as good a reason as any. Isn't this an instance of privilege-induced blindness causing harm?)

In theory, if you wanted to get rid of a truculent justice minister who won't put a thumb on the scales of justice, offering her a job you know she will never, ever take seems like a good way to set about doing that. But this is just an unhappy coincidence, and we are not to draw inferences from it. I would conclude that "The Liberal government undoubtedly meant well," but saying this sarcastically has, I am afraid, already become a Canadian cliché.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/06/justin-trudeaus-snc-lavalin-explanation-cant-come-soon-enough.html

Justin Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin explanation can't come soon enough

By Chantal HébertStar Columnist Wed., March 6, 2019

When Gerald Butts appeared in front of the House of Commons justice committee on Wednesday, he did not to try to topple Jody Wilson-Raybould from her truth-teller pedestal in the SNC-Lavalin affair - almost certainly an impossible mission - but he did chip away at its base.

From the same basic facts, Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary wove a strikingly different narrative of the interactions that took place between the prime minister, his inner circle and the former attorney general over the handling of the judicial file of the Montreal engineering firm.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-the-near-certainty-of-liberal-wrongdoing-now-reduced-to-a-nagging-suspicion?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=recommended_articles

John Ivison: The near certainty of political interference now reduced to a nagging suspicion

Despite its shortcomings, Gerald Butts' account was the first coherent counter-narrative to the one offered by Wilson-Raybould

John Ivison	

March 6, 2019 6:42 PM EST

Gerald Butts' testimony at the justice committee did not present any exculpatory evidence that would exonerate the Trudeau government from allegations that it engaged in a pattern of interference in the independence of the attorney general.

But he may have placed doubt in the minds of the jury.

Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary made clear he was not going to engage in a mud-slinging contest with Jody Wilson-Raybould over her testimony before the same committee last week. Instead, he gave a calm counter-argument to many of the points she raised.

However, his powers of persuasion were lacking when questions moved to exchanges between the former attorney general and members of the prime minister's staff, and the clerk of the Privy Council – conversations in which Butts was not directly involved and about which he was reduced to offering robust character references.

<snip>

n one curious episode, Butts said he learned just last week in her testimony that Wilson-Raybould made her final decision not to overrule the DPP on September 16 – even though in her testimony she said she told Trudeau she had made up her mind during their meeting on September 17.

It seems inconceivable that this information was not passed on to Butts, but this blissful ignorance allowed him and others in the PMO to continue to urge Wilson-Raybould to take another look at the file.

<snip>

(This opinion piece is not being well-accepted in the comments section - Loachman)


----------



## Loachman (7 Mar 2019)

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-butts-testimony-have-i-mentioned-the-9000-jobs/

The Butts testimony: Have I mentioned the 9,000 jobs?

Paul Wells: Someone close to the PM finally explained their thinking around this scandal. It revealed a political operation whose judgment was hard to admire.

by Paul Wells

Mar 6, 2019

<snip>

Does it seem to you that I'm depicting those two imperatives in a way that makes it seem the jobs were more important to Butts and his colleagues than the prosecutor's independence? Well, I'm stuck with the material. Check out the very next thing he said. "So, it was and is the attorney general's decision to make. It would, however, be Canadians' decision to live with. [My emphasis - pw] Specifically, the 9,000-plus people who could lose their jobs, as well as the many thousands more who work on the company's supply chain."

I read this as Butts saying they were being careful to protect the AG's right to be catastrophically wrong and ruin thousands of people's lives. The weird tedious Cape Breton theatre Butts indulged in throughout his appearance-look, I've testified before a parliamentary committee, and I didn't turn it into Sarnia Reminiscences Hour-was part of this. I come from a land too well acquainted with grief, he seemed to be saying. I don't know why this fancy-pants AG from Vancouver was deaf to the voices of the precariously employed.

Wilson-Raybould has testified that, when informed on Sept. 4 that public prosecutor Kathleen Roussel had decided to prosecute instead of negotiating a DPA, she "immediately put in motion… a careful consideration and study of the matter." By Sept. 16 she had decided "that it was inappropriate for me to intervene in the decision of the director of public prosecutions."

Butts finds it impossible to believe such a review could have been concluded in 12 days. He believes no decision could be final until "a verdict is rendered." He is, in fact, amazed to learn that Wilson-Raybould thought her final decision was… a final decision. He would prefer-he thought it was the case that-any decision to go to trial would not be final even after the trial had begun, or indeed, at any point until the end of the trial. There would, in this analysis, be nothing inappropriate about the finance minister's chief of staff checking in with Wilson-Raybould on the possibility of hoisting the SNC-Lavalin trial, say, today or this coming November or next Easter.

To put labels on the two viewpoints here, Wilson-Raybould obviously thought a decision by the AG to interfere in decisions about public prosecutions should be exceptional. Butts thinks it should be routine. Wilson-Raybould wants the independence of the director of public prosecutions to be robust. Butts wants that independence to be minimal.

This takes us to the cabinet shuffle that ended with Wilson-Raybould being moved to veterans' affairs. We don't flatter Butts if we take him at his word here, for he describes some very shaky political thinking.

Scott Brison tells Butts and Katie Telford on Dec. 12 he's leaving politics. With what I have learned is comically characteristic insouciance, they assume a grown man does not believe the simple sentences coming from his mouth, and they spend the rest of calendar year 2018 in denial. Brison comes back from Christmas break and it turns out he meant what he said. So now they have to rush a cabinet shuffle they could have considered at leisure.

They need a strong minister at Treasury Board. It can only be Jane Philpott. But she leaves a serious vacancy behind her, at Indigenous Services. Any number of "capable people and experienced lawyers" could handle Justice, but Wilson-Raybould is "perhaps [the] only" one who can handle Indigenous Services, so Trudeau offers it to her. [UPDATE: I've edited this paragraph and the next, to better reflect Butts's testimony – pw] And she says no. Because she's Indigenous, and the operating assumptions behind Indigenous Services are Indian Act assumptions, and she's spent her life opposing the Indian Act. "Frankly, I should have thought she would say" that, Butts admits, but he's amazed she would turn down any new assignment, and he and Trudeau quickly decide she must be given another post, pour encourager les autres. So she gets Veterans' Affairs, after Seamus O'Regan vacates it.

Wait. What? Indigenous Services is the Prime Minister's personal highest priority. And Seamus O'Regan - a broadcaster with two political science degrees who's fleeing Veterans' Affairs before its stakeholders chase him out-is the man for the job?

As I say, you don't even have to disbelieve any of that to be unimpressed.

But perhaps the most striking thing about Butts's testimony was his repeated refusal to answer MPs' repeated questions about Wilson-Raybould's repeated assertions that a cavalcade of PMO and other staffers, and the Prime Minister himself, warned her repeatedly that Liberals would lose their jobs in elections because of her decision.

That's important because of this passage from the Trudeau government's version of the Open and Accountable Government ethics handbook, which the Prime Minister invited every minister to read and take to heart when this government came to office. At section F.5 of that document, we can read the following. "The Attorney General and the DPP are bound by the constitutional principle that the prosecutorial function be exercised independently of partisan concerns."

The words that leap out at me from that sentence are bound, constitutional and partisan. The first means that as soon as partisan calculations enter the picture, they are bound-they no longer have any choice. The second elevates this consideration above merely routine or even legal considerations, to the highest plane of our law: that of constitutional principle. And the third is the tripwire. You cannot warn the attorney general of Liberal losses without binding her to protect the prosecutor's independence.

<snip>

Taken together, Butts's testimony adds up to a portrait of a governing inner circle that would not ever take a "no" from a director of public prosecutions as final. They would not ever take Jody Wilson-Raybould's refusal to correct the prosecutor as final. They could not believe an important decision could be made in a week and a half. They could not, themselves, manage a cabinet shuffle in a much longer span of time, except by making a mockery of its central strategic imperative. And they can provide no evidence for the jobs claim that, to this day, Gerald Butts still uses to browbeat anyone who would disagree with the government's behaviour throughout this saga.

This was Team Trudeau's best day since the saga began, because at least it featured somebody close to the Prime Minister speaking in complete sentences in a setting outside a campaign rally or a space-exploration news conference. I still found very little of it encouraging.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-acknowledges-erosion-of-trust-between-pmo-wilson-raybould-2/

Trudeau acknowledges 'erosion of trust' between PMO, Wilson-Raybould over SNC-Lavalin case 

Steven Chase
Daniel Leblanc Parliamentary affairs reporter
Robert Fife Ottawa Bureau Chief

Published 9 minutes ago

Prime Minster Justin Trudeau says he didn't realize there was an "erosion of trust" between his office and former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould over the fall of 2018 and admitted he should have realized this was taking place.

The Prime Minister used an early morning press conference in Ottawa to speak at length about the political crisis that has engulfed his government over the past month and triggered the resignation of one of his most senior aides and two cabinet ministers including Ms. Wilson-Raybould.

He offered no apologies for what has taken place, admitted no wrongdoing in what has unfolded since The Globe and Mail reported on Feb. 7 that officials in the Prime Minister's Office put pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould to reach a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin.

Jody Wilson-Raybould testified to the Commons Justice Committee that she faced "consistent and sustained" political pressure from Mr. Trudeau and top officials when she was attorney-general, including "veiled threats" to shelve the criminal prosecution of the Montreal construction and engineering giant.

What Mr. Trudeau did acknowledge Thursday morning is that he should have paid more attention to growing friction between his staff and Ms. Wilson Raybould.

"What has become clear over the various testimonies is over the past months there was an erosion or trust between my office, my former principal secretary and the former attorney-general," Mr. Trudeau told reporters at the National Press Theatre.

"I was not aware of that erosion of trust. As Prime Minister and leader of the federal ministry, I should have been," he said.

He said he will be seeking outside advice on whether to separate the posts of attorney-general and justice minister as well as practices and operations of cabinet.


----------



## garb811 (7 Mar 2019)

Folks, after a good start to the discussion on this issue, things have gotten wobbly. I went though and cleaned a few things up and issued a couple of warnings last night and now I’m having to play catch-up again... There is no reason for the decline in the level of discourse, bring it back to where it was. 

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## FJAG (7 Mar 2019)

Took me some time to find a copy of Trudeau's full speech this morning but finally found it here:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-trudeau-says-erosion-of-trust-behind-snc-lavalin-scandal-1.4325886

For some strange reason I had thought he might do the right thing today and take responsibility but, in short, all he is saying is that he unfortunately didn't know that Butts had "lost lost" in JWR and that he should have known this and further that it's too bad that she didn't come to him to tell him how she really felt. He never did say why he demoted her out of Justice/AG but I guess it's that "lost trust" thing.

Looking forward to many more weeks of disbelief by just about everyone.

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (7 Mar 2019)

Here's Fox News take on the press conference:



> Justin Trudeau denies wrongdoing, refuses to apologize in rare address of corruption scandal threatening his political life
> By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News
> 
> Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday addressed for the first time the corruption scandal that threatens to bring down his administration, saying there was a breakdown in trust and communication with his former justice minister – but he stopped short of an apology.
> ...



Full article here:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/justin-trudeau-denies-wrongdoing-refuses-to-apologize-in-rare-address-of-corruption-scandal-threatening-his-political-life

 :cheers:


----------



## dangerboy (7 Mar 2019)

I wonder if this apology to the Inuit community had been planned and always supposed to occur today or if this is just something to distract from the scandal? It just seems out of the blue.


----------



## OldSolduer (7 Mar 2019)

Remember the Principles of Leadership? I don’t think the PM took that Performance Objective did he? As for his apology, I listened to it (sort of) and his delivery in my opinion was horrible.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Mar 2019)

dangerboy said:
			
		

> I wonder if this apology to the Inuit community had been planned and always supposed to occur today or if this is just something to distract from the scandal? It just seems out of the blue.


Just because we only just heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't been in the works for some time. I'm guessing any time any PM + 2 cabinet ministers travel for more than one event in one place, there's some planning involved.  Given this morning's timings, I suspect the news conference was tacked on early to take into account already-planned events like traveling 1/2 way across the country.


----------



## Jed (7 Mar 2019)

The PMO probably has an official apology tour all planned up just ready to engage as required. Lol


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2019)

The jobs excuse is just that, a weak excuse.

Construction people change companies all the time. If one company can't fill a contract, another will.

The net jobs, workers and contracts are still there in the same numbers, with, or without SNC.

The only ones losing their jobs over this are the mandarins in the Montreal corporate office. Personal and/or business friends of our current PM.

That, and the Elites will have to start at ground zero and build a new front for their liberal money machine.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (7 Mar 2019)

My GF knows ZERO about news and/or politics.....she was shocked at what a horrible speaker and how he seemed to be just plain 'smarmy'. [yes,thats how bad she is, never even heard him speak before]  She's happy now, back to her android box full of old stupid television shows, just like waaaaaaaaay too many Canadians I fear.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Mar 2019)

One thing that sticks out for me is the repeated narrative of "if there was a problem, she should have spoken up."

#BlameTheVictim/#NoMeansNo much?


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> While the old saying hell hath no fury etc., I've been looking at the back grounds of DMs and Department heads and advisors to both of these former Ministers of the Crown. It seems they both have assembled quite the collage of *seething, indignant feminists* in their departments.



Are there any other kinds?


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Mar 2019)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Are there any other kinds?



Yes, like the CEO of General Motors for one: Mary Barra

https://www.gm.com/our-company/leadership/corporate-officers.html

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-barra-29469712/


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Mar 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Yes, like the CEO of General Motors for one: Mary Barra
> 
> https://www.gm.com/our-company/leadership/corporate-officers.html
> 
> https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-barra-29469712/


Successful women are not necessarily feminists.

#FeminismIsCancer


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Mar 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> The PMO probably has an official apology tour all planned up just ready to engage as required. Lol



I bet.

Justins 2019 Apology tour.


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Mar 2019)

Aaaaaaaaaaand a friendly reminder from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada today via Twitter ...


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Mar 2019)

Cue the new AG having a chat with some of his staff in 3...2...1...?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Mar 2019)

Just read a synopsis of Wernick's testimony. https://www.thepostmillennial.com/privy-council-clerk-michael-wernick-exposed-as-a-liar-in-vicious-roasting-by-mps/

I'm reminded of the US Intelligence committees. Where someone comes in and pleads the 5th to every question asked. Clarifying about statements he says he doesn't remember saying? How does that work? You either don't remember, or you do.

We're getting to see the real liberal party at work here. The nuts and bolts of the organization. A peek behind the curtain of the great and powerful Oz. Corruption, scandal, lies, cronyism, nepotism and deceit. Not the sunny ways, unicorn and rainbows claptrap that keeps drooling out of trudeau's mouth to placate the masses.

In the US, you could likely charge them under RICO laws. Here, the liberals just change the law to suit their particular situation.


----------



## QV (7 Mar 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Cue the new AG having a chat with some of his staff in 3...2...1...?



And hopefully that conversation gets leaked to the Globe too


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Mar 2019)

It seems unreasonable to me that the Libs might think that JWR and Philpott have emptied the ammo locker on this one. 
Edit: and i think the one thing that finally sent PMJT over the edge was the MacLeans magazine cover "The Imposter". If he apologizes he would be admitting he actually is an Imposter.


----------



## FSTO (7 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> It seems unreasonable to me that the Libs might think that JWR and Philpott have emptied the ammo locker on this one.



What makes you think that they (LPC) think of any COA that is not based on their adversaries not being as smart and Machiavellin as the PMO?


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Mar 2019)

Weird how that posted while I was still drafting it? 

To answer your question: there are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Aaaaaaaaaaand a friendly reminder from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada today via Twitter ...



And reiterating

From Feb 12



> STATEMENT FROM THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE OF CANADA
> OTTAWA – February 12, 2019 – In light of comments made in the press regarding the prosecution of Vice Admiral Mark Norman, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada would like to clarify the context of the conversations between PPSC counsel and counsel for the Privy Council Office.
> 
> The document was PPSC counsel’s notes of conversations between crown counsel and counsel for the Privy Council Office. In the process of preparing for trial, the PPSC was looking to identify potential witnesses who could explain issues of cabinet confidence, as it is applied by the Clerk of the Privy Council.   The PPSC will be producing an unredacted version of the notes on Friday to the judge.
> ...



It seems that Ms Roussel and her Prosecutors are at pains to declare their freedom from influence..... Twice in a month.


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Cue the new AG having a chat with some of his staff in 3...2...1...?



Already done apparently

@PPSC hasn't Tweeted
When they do, their Tweets will show up here.

https://twitter.com/ppsc?lang=en


Edit:  I stand corrected.  Apparently this isn't the correct link

See below

https://army.ca/forums/threads/129826/post-1564134.html#msg1564134


----------



## Haggis (7 Mar 2019)

So, we're all done here?

We're all good?  It was a learning experience.  It won't happen again.  Let's move on.

Nothing to see here.... move along, Mr. Norman,....move along.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Mar 2019)

Funny tweet from one of Trudeaus MPs.



> MP Celina
> “I believe real leadership is about listening, learning &  compassion...central to my leadership is fostering an environment where my Ministers, caucus & staff feel comfortable coming to me when they have concerns” *I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?*



I wonder what she means by that. Guessing his highness's reaction wasn't all sunny ways? Maybe she just has a different recollection of the events lol

https://twitter.com/MPCelina


----------



## Furniture (7 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Funny tweet from one of Trudeaus MPs.
> 
> I wonder what she means by that. Guessing his highness's reaction wasn't all sunny ways? Maybe she just has a different recollection of the events lol
> 
> https://twitter.com/MPCelina



I do hope she shares "her truth" about this.


----------



## dapaterson (7 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Already done apparently
> 
> @PPSC hasn't Tweeted
> When they do, their Tweets will show up here.
> ...



You are mistaken.  Twitter is at: https://twitter.com/ppsc_sppc


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Mar 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You are mistaken.  Twitter is at: https://twitter.com/ppsc_sppc



Thanks for the correction.  See above.


----------



## Loachman (7 Mar 2019)

https://boereport.com/2019/03/06/column-excusing-bribery-hurts-not-helps-canadian-jobs/

Column: Excusing bribery hurts, not helps, Canadian jobs

March 6, 201912:21 PM Craig Pichach

Responding to allegations of political interference into criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin executives, the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying “we will always stand up for Canadian jobs”.

Trudeau’s excusing of unethical conduct by executives at SNC-Lavalin is not standing up for jobs, in the long run he is putting jobs at risk. At worst, he is encouraging Canadian companies to engage in criminal acts opening the door for our economy to stagnate and degrade.

SNC-Lavalin has enjoyed special treatment in obtaining government contracts despite a 10-year World Bank ban _*and being charged again and again*_ in engaging in corruption.

Why would SNC-Lavalin change if the government has their back. Trudeau’s Liberals continue to award contracts to this firm and help them escape justice.

What does one need to do to ‘earn’ this special treatment given this would never occur for an Alberta based engineering company? Is the Prime Minister saying to get special treatment we are to bribe our way into contracts and move headquarters to Quebec? You would hope not but his actions speak louder than words.

Justin Trudeau is an engineering dropout so I forgive him for not understanding that bribery in bids is not ethical for the Professional Engineer. And yet Canadian engineering companies under Trudeau are to be not only awarded contracts for engaging in bribery but given special treatment? How is the international community supposed to trust Canadian engineering if this is the norm as the former Chief of Staff has said?

<snip>

This next one was previously mentioned, but Vice has now picked it up as well:

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/zma8dx/liberal-mp-celina-caesar-chavannes-claps-back-at-justin-trudeau-over-his-non-apology

by Manisha Krishnan

Mar 7 2019, 12:05pm

Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes Claps Back at Justin Trudeau over His Non-Apology

The plot thickens.

A Liberal MP has clapped back at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau following a speech he made Thursday morning about the SNC-Lavalin controversy.

<snip>

“I believe that real leadership is about listening, learning and compassion,” he said. “One of the things central to my leadership is fostering an environment where my ministers, caucus and staff feel comfortable coming to me when they have concerns.”

Quoting that portion of Trudeau’s speech, Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes tweeted, “I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?”

She did not elaborate further.

VICE has reached out to Caesar-Chavannes for comment on her tweet and will update this post if she responds.

Last week, Caesar-Chavannes, the MP for Whitby, Ontario, announced that she would not be seeking re-election this year. 

<snip>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-trudeau-bribery-1.5047337

SNC-Lavalin pushed Liberals for 'zero debarment' from federal contracts

Company looking to avoid being barred from federal contracts for an extended period

Jim Bronskill, Andy Blatchford The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 07, 2019 3:16 PM ET

SNC-Lavalin, facing a 10-year ban from federal business over corruption charges, urged the Liberal government in 2017 to water down the penalty scheme for corporate misconduct to the point where a guilty company could completely dodge a ban on receiving public contracts.

In essence, the engineering and construction giant recommended the Liberals leave wiggle room for a "zero debarment" time period under the government's integrity regime. 

<snip>

A forthcoming proposal to update the integrity regime - which Public Services Minister Carla Qualtrough has said will be finalized in about a month - might have major consequences for SNC-Lavalin. It could help the embattled firm avoid a lengthy, economically punishing ban on federal contracts.

<snip>

The Liberal government came forward with a proposed new scheme last fall that includes no minimum ineligibility period.

The proposal, which triggered another round of public consultations, was intended to take effect in early 2019, but the government has not yet indicated whether or when it will proceed.

Qualtrough, the minister in charge of federal procurement, told a Commons committee last week the government wants more flexibility in the regime for dealing with companies that have integrity problems.

<snip>

In a written submission to the government consultation, SNC-Lavalin called on Ottawa to align its ineligibility guidelines with those of the United States, where an organization could be excluded from bidding on procurement contracts for up to three years, with the possibility of extension.

"This also means that discretion allows for a zero debarment time period," said the October 2017 submission.

SNC-Lavalin argued the current penalties were "sufficiently draconian" to discourage a company from disclosing wrongdoing by rogue employees. It said there should be "little or no consequence" for a firm that condemns bad conduct promptly and punishes the employees in question.

"When it comes to fostering a culture of good ethics in business, as the saying goes: 'One good sacking is worth a thousand memos."'

In sum, the company said the integrity rules should not result in punishment of companies that have "legitimately disavowed their employee's misconduct in ways that make it clear the company itself had no criminal intent to commit the misconduct." 

<snip>


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Mar 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> You are mistaken.  Twitter is at: https://twitter.com/ppsc_sppc


And said Twitter post's still up as of this post


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Mar 2019)

- “Qualtrough, the minister in charge of federal procurement, told a Commons committee last week the government wants more flexibility in the regime for dealing with companies that have integrity problems.”

Except this company doesn’t just have an integrity problem. They have a predisposition to commit crimes problem, because it’s in their intergenerational history. This is nothing more than a corporatization of Gladue type sentencing. I’m surprised nobody put it that way to the former AG.  Take that Frankie!!


----------



## TCM621 (8 Mar 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> SNC-Lavalin argued the current penalties were "sufficiently draconian" to discourage a company from disclosing wrongdoing by rogue employees.



I am fairly certain that if any company turned a quote rogue employee unquote who was committing crimes that company would be spared "draconian" penalties. The problem is that most companies try to cover things up and when they are caught they blame rogue employees who get let go, typically with healthy severance packages.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Mar 2019)

Article linked from the Charles Adler twitter/radio show:

Part one.

http://www.ottawalife.com/article/the-deep-state-the-trudeau-government-lobbyists-and-the-legalization-of-corruption-in-canada?c=1

*The Deep State - The Trudeau Government, Lobbyists and the Legalization of Corruption in Canada* - 6 Mar 19
      _"There's no whore like an old whore" - Brian Mulroney on the Liberal Government in 1984_
    
What many people outside of Ottawa don't understand is that there is a parallel system of government in Ottawa. This Deep State has more power than the elected MPs and Ministers who are supposed to run the country. These people are the lobbyists who ply their trade with the efficiency of a surgeon’s scalpel. They ensure that banks, telecoms, airlines, special interest groups and large corporations like SNC Lavalin (SNC) can skirt the rules. They might even make special ones providing protections that everyday taxpayers would never receive. The big banks and credit card companies in Canada continually rake in billions of dollars in profits each quarter through services fees and other outrageous charges that can only be made in an uncompetitive, monopolistic banking structure—ever wonder how? These banks have a permanent lobby in Ottawa known as the Canadian Banking Association. They monitor legislation and issues, meet with key Ministers, and spin jargon to claim they are actually competitive businesses in order to justify their constant consumer fee increases and monopolistic banking practices.

For decades, they have shut down competition in Canadian banking. With government approval, they have colluded with insurance companies to increase fees and suppress competition in that industry as well. They have successfully shut down all attempts to rein in the double-digit credit card interest rates and the annual service fees and charges that are, essentially, legalized theft. Banks, airlines, marketing boards, telecoms and large corporations all support the Deep State, hiring former political aides or Ministers to work for them as “lobbyists.” They thrive in Ottawa and other provincial capitals.

In Ontario, during the Wynne regime, if you wanted to meet with a Minister you would often be redirected through a lobbyist or have to be affiliated with one to get access. Telecom lobbyists are especially active in Canada's Deep State; their sole purpose is to ensure that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the federal body in charge of regulating the industry and rates for Canadians, remains a toothless eunuch. The telecom monopoly in Canada are vampires who have sucked the life and credibility out of this “regulatory body.” Canada has continually had the highest telephone, cable and cell phone rates in the western world for the past 4 decades—all thanks to lobbyists. Just look at your monthly cell phone bill.

You can “visit” the Deep State online by going to the website of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada—if you can call them that. “Commissioner” is the wrong title for this job: a better title would be “Maitre’D” of Lobbying. The current holder of the post, Nancy Bélanger, was appointed by Justin Trudeau on December 30, 2017, for a seven-year term. The government seemingly installed someone with no prior substantive corporate experience despite the fact that the majority of lobbying involves the business sector. Bélanger has never worked in the private sector and has spent her entire career in government, much of it working as a senior legal advisor with the Immigration and Refugee Board. To say she is a toothless tiger would be an understatement. Her silence about SNC lobbyist scandal rocking Canada's government and justice system speaks volumes about the impotency of her office.

The Trudeau Liberal government allowed the Deep State to achieve an unprecedented level of influence. They passed Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) legislation allowing for sentencing agreements between the government and a criminal corporation, where the criminal agrees to plead guilty and pay a large fine in exchange for a “get out of jail free” pass and the ability to continue to bid on more government contracts. As a result, corporations in Canada can now be involved in criminal acts and get off if they can pay; in essence, corruption and criminality are legal. This new law was cut in the back rooms of Ottawa at the behest of SNC-Lavalin and a cabal of other lobbyists who convinced an incognizant Prime Minister, a conceited Clerk of the Privy Council, a dimwitted Minister of Finance, several obstinate cabinet ministers and a caucus of sheep to pass this DPA legislation into law. They supported it despite the fact that it would allow for transformative changes in terms of how corporate criminal fraud cases would be prosecuted under the criminal code. When the matter was raised for debate by committee members at the Justice Committee, the Liberal majority on the committee shut down reviewing the DPA legislation. A Conservative Senator also flagged it but was voted down by the Trudeau appointed “independent” senators. The government buried the bill in the bowels of a larger Omnibus Bill that that included the 2018 Federal Budget Implementation Act. The DPA section is in Division 20 in Part 6 of the 385-page document (making Deferred Prosecution Agreements a legal part of the Criminal Code, Part XXII.1, “Remediation Agreements).

Conservative finance critic and Ottawa-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre stumbled on the provision during Committee hearings to review the Budget Bill. He questioned why such a law was being put forward which allowed criminals to avoid prosecution. Surprisingly, the Chair of the Finance Committee, Liberal MP Wayne Easter, admitted he did even not know a criminal code change (DPAs) was in the budget bill. He told the committee, “there is a huge question whether this (DPA’s) should be in a budget bill.” Hull-Aylmer Liberal MP Greg Fergus told the committee that he too was surprised to see the DPA law in the budget bill and acknowledged that he learned of it when Poilievere mentioned it. “It left an uncomfortable taste in my mouth,” Fergus added. “It seems we are letting white-collar criminals off the hook with a slap on the wrist.”

Poilievre raised the matter again in the House of Commons in May 2018, asking Finance Minister Bill Morneau why the budget bill included “a provision that would allow accused white-collar criminals charged with bribery, fraud, insider trading and other offences to have all charges dropped.” Morneau responded, “We believe that our approach to deferred prosecution agreements will enable us to pursue an approach that is functioning and doing well in other economies—one that will result in more effective continuation of business success by companies once they have paid their dues to society.” In plain terms, Morneau was saying - do the crime, pay a big fine, and business as usual.

Despite their concerns about criminality, both Wayne Easter and Greg Fergus voted in favour of the DPA legislation without changes along with every other government MP. The law to resolve corporate offences in Canada under the Criminal Code and the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (DPA) took effect on September 19, 2018.

In February 2019, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick testified before the Justice Committee that DPA legislation had been a transparent process. He claimed all the rules were followed, asserting that the information on DPA’s were published in a February 2018 report highlighting public support for a DPA process in Canada. His presentation describing the transparency of it all was deserving of a bureaucrats gold star. In reality, DPA legislation was  cleverly crafted and passed in a way where its proponents could claim “transparency” in the process, when the exact opposite was true. The public had never been asked about them, Finance Committee MPs including the Committee Chair were not aware they had been slipped into the budget bill, the Liberal-dominated Justice Committee refused to allow discussion on them and they were never debated in an open and transparent manner in Parliament. Only lobbyists and select law firms were aware of this drastic change to the criminal code—of course, that is to be expected since these were the interested parties who drafted the content that became the basis of the new law. The Deep State hustlers for a DPA were SNC-Lavalin Chairman Kevin Lynch, SNC CEO Neil Bruce and a handful of seasoned lobbyists.

*SNC-Lavalin and Past Criminal Activity*

SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal-based corporation which provides engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) services in various industries including mining and metallurgy, oil and gas, environment and water, infrastructure and clean power. They have tens of thousands of employees worldwide, with offices and operations in over 160 countries.

In 2013, the World Bank banned SNC and its subsidiaries from any involvement in projects it finances for a decade – the longest debarment period it has ever imposed. These unprecedented sanctions followed an investigation into the alleged bribery of officials by SNC-Lavalin for projects in Bangladesh and Cambodia. The World Bank statement said, “SNC-Lavalin’s misconduct involved a conspiracy to pay bribes and misrepresentations when bidding for Bank-financed contracts.”

“This case is testimony to collective action against global corruption,” said Leonard McCarthy, World Bank Integrity Vice President. “Once we had evidence of the company’s misconduct, we referred the matter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.” The World Bank’s action came at the same time that SNC-Lavalin was under investigation by Canadian and Swiss authorities over bribery payments in Libya and was facing a series of class-action lawsuits on other matters involving Canadian projects. In the months prior to the World Bank banning the company in 2013, its former CEO Pierre Duhaime was arrested in Montreal on charges of bribery related to the construction of a $1.3-billion hospital project in Montreal. He was found guilty on February 1, 2019 and sentenced to 20 months of house arrest after pleading guilty to a single charge in connection with the hospital fraud.

After the World Bank’s banning decision in 2013, newly placed SNC President and CEO Robert Card said, “The company’s decision to settle signals our determination as we go forward to set standards for ethics in business conduct and for good governance that are beyond reproach. The company has already taken, and will continue to take, measures to ensure rigorous compliance and control procedures are in place.” This was poppycock. SNC was still facing charges in Canada under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) for bribes totaling over $48 million to Libyan government officials, including former dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s son, Saadi, to secure government contracts. It was discovered that part of the money SNC executives paid in bribes to Gadhafi was used to finance a booze-filled cross-country tour for him to visit prostitutes in cities across Canada. By October 2018, the case was in preliminary hearings in the courts in Canada.

Desperate to avoid being held accountable for their alleged criminal activity, SNC hired Kevin Lynch in December 2017. Lynch is a former Clerk of the Privy Council (2006-2009), Secretary to the Cabinet, and Head of the Public Service of Canada as their new Chairman. Elected as Director and appointed as Vice-Chairman in May 2017, Lynch had been Vice-Chair of BMO Financial Group since leaving government in 2010. He still serves on the BMO Board. Mr. Lynch is neither a contractor, engineer, nor construction worker, but he is familiar with how government works and how laws are made. Canada's former highest “public servant”—generously paid and pensioned off by taxpayers after a 33-year career—was now one of the key executives running SNC-Lavalin.

Lynch had decades of expertise and a large network of contacts, and as the new Chair of SNC-Lavalin, he saw it fit to use his experience to lobby senior government Ministers and officials to pass DPA legislation. Lynch was not breaking any laws in doing the bidding for SNC. However, the ethics of Canada former "top civil servant " becoming the main maestro and strategist for a criminally convicted firm that was now lobbying government of Canada officials is another matter entirely. Working with SNC’s executive team and other lobbyists, a two-step process was devised to ensure SNC could avoid a criminal conviction in Canada. First, they would lobby the government to pass a DPA law. Then, SNC would utilize the DPA legislation to avoid criminal prosecution and potential jail time by paying a fine. Lynch and other Ottawa lobbyists (two of whom were key advisors to previous Prime Ministers) persuaded influential Trudeau Ministers to support DPAs under the ruse that by doing so they were protecting the jobs of innocent employees of SNC who might be affected by the fraud of company executives. Doing this, they said, was quite normal. Similar types of remediation agreement legislation had been passed in the United States, France, Brazil and Great Britain after the 2008 financial crisis. Interestingly, the only key Minister they did not lobby was Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Attorney General and Justice Minister of Canada.

The new law stated that DPAs were to be negotiated by the prosecution and the accused, and are subject to judicial approval. They could be accompanied by the payment of penalties, restitution, implementation of compliance measures, and other terms and conditions as negotiated by the parties including the potential appointment of corporate monitorships. Some offences are subject to resolution through a Remediation Agreement: bribery of public officials, both domestic and foreign, fraud, municipal corruption, insider trading, private bribery (secret commissions), money-laundering and other offences. Competition offences such as price-fixing, bid-rigging and misleading advertising were not part of the new law. The new law required judicial approval of remediation agreements and the potential involvement of victim representatives. Negotiations for a Remediation Agreement were to be formally initiated by the prosecution, but the expectation of the law was that accused corporations would be the ones to request the initiation of a negotiation as part of a company’s cooperation with an investigation.

Most importantly, prior to commencing a negotiation the prosecution must determine that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, recognize that the negotiation is in the public interest, and obtain the consent of the Attorney General to the negotiation. If the Attorney General refuses, based on the advice of the prosecutors, the case proceeds to court. In the SNC case, prosecutors had determined that the company did not meet the DPA standard—period. By December 2018, that had been made very clear to the company. In an attempt to get the Justice department to change its mind, SNC issued a statement in December 2018, saying its Quebec operations were under threat as a result of "ongoing legal challenges."

Records show that SNC-Lavalin representatives met at the Prime Minister's Office 18 times between February 2016 and December 2018—an abnormal amount of access for anyone, let alone a company undergoing criminal prosecution. SNC and its lobbyists had 80 additional meetings with top officials at Global Affairs Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development, (including Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains himself), the Privy Council Office, Export Development Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada and Public Safety, Treasury Board, and Natural Resources and Environment. They also met with many Senators including Peter Harder, the government's representative in the Senate. Curiously enough, they met with David MacNaughton, Canada’s Ambassador to the United States who had served as Ontario co-chair for the federal Liberal campaign in 2015. Before taking on the role of Ambassador, MacNaughton ran Strategy Corp, one of the most influential lobbying firms in the country.

The lobbyist registry stated the reason for all these meetings was “justice and law enforcement.” However, Lynch and the SNC lobbyists never met with Wilson-Raybould or anyone from the Department of Justice. They were using their Deep State influence to do an end run on the Attorney General of Canada. It is not known whether or not SNC Chairman and Former Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch and current Clerk of the Privy Council Office Michael Wernick had any private one-on-one conversations or phone conversations related to SNC. Most troubling of all is Wernick’s admission that he tried to convince Attorney General Wilson-Raybould to support a DPA for SNC.   Wilson-Raybould told the  Justice committee that  Michael Wernick, the clerk of the privy council,   said “there is a board meeting on [Sept. 20] with stock holders” and warned that the company “will likely be moving to London” without an intervention. Incredulously Wernick  and Finance Minister Bill Morneau could not produce one document to verify  the veracity of any of that  claim.  They apparently did not consider  that  this was a veiled threat  by SNC to get their way. The idea that SNC would move its corporate office to London England in the middle  of the Brexit crisis is beyond absurd. Trudeau himself  made the same claims without any evidence,  stressing that he represents an electoral district in Quebec where SNC employs people.However he too could cite no proof or evidence to support SNC was moving.  SNC  employs about 9,000 people in Canada and has  expressed publicly that it’s looking to relocate.Neil Bruce, chief executive of SNC, was quoted in a fourth-quarter conference call on February 22 saying the exact opposite “We've got plenty of opportunities to grow the business, outside of Canada. But also we are committed to the Canadian market and to our Canadian employees as well.” Further, SNC has a number of legal and commercial agreements that require it to stay in Montreal until at least 2023. So the whole "moving thing" was a ploy that Wernick and Trudeau fell for hook,line and sinker.  Many questioned why Wernick, Canada’s most senior  “public servant” and Finance Minister Bill Morneau were so intimately involved in shilling for a large corporation without  at least doing some basic due diligence. Wernick  told the Justice Committee that he raised concerns about SNC having an impact on the Quebec elections—which is absolutely none of his business as the “apolitical” Clerk.

On February 12, Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned from cabinet. In testimony before the Justice Committee, she said she believed she had been removed from her role as Attorney General because she refused to be pressured into allowing SNC to obtain a DPA to avoid criminal prosecution. She asserts that direct and constant pressure to do so came from Prime Minister Trudeau, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, Principal Secretary Gerald Butts, Chief of Staff Katie Telford, and others in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and Minister of Finance's office .


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Mar 2019)

Part two of *The Deep State - The Trudeau Government, Lobbyists and the Legalization of Corruption in Canada* - 6 Mar 19

The SNC-Lavalin affair raises several governance  and ethical issues that strike at the heart of Canada's democracy. More importantly, the scandal raises questions about the actions and integrity of some of Canada's most senior public servants and elected officials.

1. Why was the Clerk of the Privy Council, Canada's top public servant, Michael Wernick so personally engaged in a lobbying process to get SNC a DPA?

2. Why didn’t the Commissioner of Lobbying take notice of the 80 meetings and inquire as to the efficacy of these meetings?

3. How is it possible that the two key government MPs on the Finance Committee including the Chairman, Liberal MP Wayne Easter did not know that new DPAs legislation that would dramatically change Canada’s laws with regards to corporate fraud and corruption had been included in the budget bill?.

4. Why did the Chair of the House of Commons Finance Committee Wayne Easter vote for DPA's in the budget bill after he raised concerns about the ethicality of these agreements being put in a budget bill?

5. Why did the Justice committee not review the DPA legislation in an open and transparent manner before it was passed?

6. Why and when did lobbyists meet with the then-President of the Treasury Board, Scott Brison, in this matter? Did Kevin Lynch promise Scott Brison anything for supporting DPAs? Brison resigned from cabinet in his role as Treasury Board President in February 2019 to “spend more time with his family,” yet within weeks, he announced that he had taken a new job as vice-chair of investment and corporate banking with the Bank of Montreal. Kevin Lynch is on the Board of Directors at the Bank of Montreal.

7. Has the Commissioner for Lobbying or the Ethics Commissioner at the House of Commons asked to see records of all correspondence, calls and meetings between Kevin Lynch and Scott Brison between 2016-2019? If not, why haven’t they requested this information?

8. Why did SNC press for a DPA for economic reasons when the legislation explicitly states that job dislocation is not a qualifying reason to obtain a DPA?

9. Why did SNC Lavalin representatives report meeting for lobbying communications on “justice and law enforcement,” with Canada’s ambassador to the United States David MacNaughton on Oct.17 and Nov.7, 2018? Before being named US Ambassador, Mr. MacNaughton was the Chairman of StrategyCorp, a communications, public affairs and lobbying company in Ottawa. What was discussed at the meetings with MacNaughton, and did he push for the DPA for SNC with the PM and PMO? If so, why? Was he acting in his role as Ambassador or in some other capacity? The real point is—why is Canada's Ambassador to the United States involved in helping SNC at all?

10. Why were Prime Minister Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Principal Secretary Gerald Butts, PMO Chief of Staff Katie Telfer, and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick — all non-lawyers pressuring the Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada to interfere in a criminal case?

It is quite common for executives in private businesses and corporations in Canada to sign professional standards agreements once a year with language that states they will not participate or engage in offering bribes, enticements or gifts to any official to another company or government. Ironically, over several years, the government of Canada has paid billions of taxpayers’ dollars in contracts to SNC. This is a key part of why the company has been very profitable. In fact, SNC’s main business in Canada is from government contracts. It is thus reasonable to assert that any bribe SNC made to anyone else—either directly or indirectly—had its genesis from us, the Canadian taxpayers.

Prime Minister Trudeau asserts that Canada is a "rule of law" country when it comes to commercial business practices. However, he did not apply that standard to himself or this government. Instead, he supported and passed DPA legislation at the behest and request of the Deep State.  Seen through this lens, one can easily understand why China is so upset about the arrest of Huawei Executive Meng Wanzhou. Huawei and Meng have never been charged or convicted of corruption. Meng is detained in Canada on a warrant with limited freedom. Yet SNC, a company convicted of fraud and bribery (including paying bribes for prostitution), gets special treatment from a government tripping over themselves to ensure they did everything possible so SNC could avoid prosecution. It appears the Chinese government would have been much further ahead in the Meng arrest if they hired Kevin Lynch or another Deep State operative to be their lobbyist. Maybe they should call Gerald Butts. Apparently he is looking for work.

By: Dan Donovan


_Publisher and Managing Editor
Dan Donovan is the founding Publisher of Ottawa Life Magazine, the capital’s largest and longest running (est. 1996) general interest and lifestyles magazine. His work has been featured in The Globe and Mail, Financial Post, Sun, Ottawa Citizen, Masthead Magazine and The Hill Times. He is a regular guest commentator on public policy matters on CFRA, 1310 AM and the Corus networks Charles Adler Radio Show. He is a former Vice President of Government and Public Affairs at Magna International. He served as Chief of Staff to the former federal minister of youth and labour and as Director of Publications and Communications at the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He is a former Director of Environment Policy at The International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France. Dan holds degrees from both the University of Ottawa and the Université de Strasbourg (Institut d’Etudes Politique et Economie). He is a past member of the Executive Committee and the Board of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, former member of the Board of the National Cycling Centre and a former governor of the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame. His first book, True Grits, New Grits was published by Hemlock press in 1993.
_


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Mar 2019)

*Three big mistakes Trudeau made at his #LavScam press conference*

1. He didn’t apologize. After Trudeau’s office leaked that the beleaguered Liberal leader was deliberating about an apology for the SNC-Lavalin scandal, we all kind of expected one. We didn’t get one. And when Trudeau was asked why, he blinked and stammered and looked offended. Dumb. Apologies cost nothing, Petit Justin. But if done right, they pay many dividends. 

2. He didn’t take responsibility. Even if you don’t apologize – even if you don’t express the smallest amount of regret, which Trudeau didn’t do either – it’s important that you accept that the proverbial buck stops with you. Trudeau (again) said that it’s all Jody Wilson-Raybould’s fault. “She didn’t come to me,” he wheezed. Well, actually, she did. You just wouldn’t listen. 

3. He didn’t sound sincere. Justin Trudeau’s greatest strength is his acting ability. He is an expert at radiating wet-eyed sincerity and emotion – kind of like our Labrador retrievers, when we come home and discover they’ve eaten an entire living room sofa. At his press conference, Trudeau had all the conviction of an ISIS hostage reading a statement prepared by his captors. This was a truly historic moment, and Trudeau needed to convince us. He didn’t. 

http://warrenkinsella.com/2019/03/three-big-mistakes-trudeau-made-at-his-lavscam-press-conference/


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Mar 2019)

Second article linked from the Charles Adler twitter/radio show:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/just-facts-maam-cory-g-litzenberger/

*Just the Facts Ma'am* - 7 Mar 19


Cory G. Litzenberger CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr; President & Founder, CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors - Red Deer, AB



> @charlesadler
> 
> #SNCLavalin Just the #Facts by Cory Litzenberger a Canadian tax specialist who got tired of the spin and went searching for the most relevant facts driving #JodyWilsonRaybauld and the prosecutors' decision not to give #SNCLavalin a #DPA


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Mar 2019)

And it is now all old news. He’s moved on, the msm are moving on. Barring something nuclear about the matter, it is soon to be a non issue. Yes, the Liberals are washing their shorts, but Tide cleans everything.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Mar 2019)

If you find a technically legal way to do something unethical or unseemly, it is still unethical or unseemly.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> And it is now all old news. He’s moved on, the msm are moving on ...


Not from where I get a lot of my news yet - YMMV

Meanwhile (emphasis mine) ...


> The Federal Court of Canada has dismissed a request by SNC-Lavalin to review a federal prosecutor’s decision declining to settle criminal charges against the company out of court.
> 
> “It has no reasonable prospect of success in the context of the law and the governing jurisprudence and taking a realistic view,” Federal Court Justice Catherine Kane said in her ruling, issued Friday.
> 
> “The law is clear that *prosecutorial discretion is not subject to judicial review, except for abuse of process. The decision at issue – whether to invite an organization to enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement – clearly falls within the ambit of prosecutorial discretion and the nature of decisions that prosecutors are regularly called to make in criminal proceedings.*” ...


More at #BoughtMediaTM _Globe & Mail_ here.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Mar 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If you find a technically legal way to do something unethical or unseemly, it is still unethical or unseemly.



Brad I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that just as many successful businesses as not operate and capitalize directly in that space. Bank fees and credit card interest rates, for example.


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Mar 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> If you find a technically legal way to do something unethical or unseemly, it is still unethical or unseemly.



Agreed. That smarmy a$$hole who raised the price of anti HIV drugs in the US about three years ago is a good example of that. Remember that piece of sh!t?


----------



## mariomike (8 Mar 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> That < snip > who raised the price of anti HIV drugs in the US about three years ago is a good example of that. Remember that < snip >?



Martin Shkreli?


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Mar 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Martin Shkreli?



Could be.


----------



## mariomike (8 Mar 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Could be.



I think it might be.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=DdqCXIC7L46asQXex7egBQ&q=%22Martin+Shkreli%22+hiv&oq=%22Martin+Shkreli%22+hiv&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39.22787.26712..27239...0.0..0.93.186.2......0....1..gws-wiz.YOJCsCqrEKw


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Mar 2019)

Conservatives will NOT introduce non-confidence motion against Trudeau in Parliament

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/03/08/federal-conservatives-not-introducing-non-confidence-motion-against-trudeau-2/#.XILb_WJOk0O

All but over now?


----------



## BurnDoctor (8 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Conservatives will NOT introduce non-confidence motion against Trudeau in Parliament
> 
> https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/03/08/federal-conservatives-not-introducing-non-confidence-motion-against-trudeau-2/#.XILb_WJOk0O
> 
> All but over now?



Um...Interrogative...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

I really wish they’d keep the boot on the neck.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2019)

Not hardly Cloud Cover

Found this via David Akin's Facebook 



> Killer column from National Observer's Sandy Garrossino who just happens to be a former Crown prosecutor.



https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/08/analysis/hidden-key-snc-lavalin-scandal?fbclid=IwAR0Anz-7a1HlZgqaC3zYpA0yF9kBGRXrA4rswNLiiy53yp6objYnAc-Fwyc




> SNC-Lavalin, a Canadian corporate giant with an established history of corruption, is charged with bribing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's brutal regime over many years, in exchange for lucrative contracts.
> 
> This case is the most serious and important prosecution of corporate corruption in modern Canadian history, and we're arguing about jobs and whether Jody Wilson-Raybould is hard to get along with.
> 
> ...



The article is a long one worth reading in full with some interesting videos attached.

Some of Lavalin's other enumerated crimes arguing against offering them a DPA in any country



> It's highly significant that SNC is no stranger to disciplinary action over its conduct. During the 2001-2011 period of the alleged Libyan bribery, the company has:
> 
> been barred from bidding on Asian Development Bank projects for fabricating qualifications and documents (2004);
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2019)

The Conservatives and the NDP have the prospect of Admiral Norman's case, various SNC Lavalin cases and motivated Press and Public Prosecutors ahead of them.

And Trudeau having lost his halo and his brain.

Time to heed Napoleon.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Mar 2019)

Conservative news outlets are all over this story as Trudeau hasn't  any friends on this side of the border. Can he last until the election or will his government fall first ? I suspect the party would want to cast him off if he is unable to last this storm. 


https://tinyurl.com/y47eatju


----------



## Haggis (8 Mar 2019)

BurnDoctor said:
			
		

> Um...Interrogative...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?



Because they know it will be defeated.  It's better to use the media to keep the light on this scandal.


----------



## BurnDoctor (8 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Because they know it will be defeated.  It's better to use the media to keep the light on this scandal.



Roger.

Hopefully,  the MSM and social media will do just that.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Mar 2019)

More of the same



> SNC-Lavalin loses court bid for special agreement to avoid criminal prosecution
> SNC-Lavalin faces legal trouble over allegations it paid millions of dollars in bribes to obtain government business in Libya — a case that has prompted a political storm for the Trudeau Liberals





> OTTAWA — SNC-Lavalin has a lost a court bid to overturn the public prosecutor’s refusal to negotiate an agreement that would see the company avoid a criminal trial.
> 
> In a ruling Friday, the Federal Court of Canada tossed out the Montreal-based engineering firm’s plea for judicial review of the 2018 decision by the director of public prosecutions.
> 
> ...



WRT negative impact on business and employees - the international standard on DPAs from the UK



> In SFO v Rolls Royce, the court flatly discounted the national economic interest, and treated employment concerns as peripheral (para 57):
> 
> "The final consideration... is the impact of prosecution on employees and others innocent of any misconduct or what might otherwise be described as the consequences of a conviction. I have no difficulty in accepting... that a criminal conviction against Rolls-Royce would have* a very substantial impact on the company.*..*and Rolls-Royce employees*... *None of these factors is determinative* of my decision in relation to this DPA; indeed, *the national economic interest is irrelevant*...
> 
> ...



From the National Observer article referenced to David Akin above.


----------



## Good2Golf (8 Mar 2019)

Especially given the Federal Court’s decision today, the current AG would have to reverse the prior AG’s decision to let the DPP’s early-Sept decision to not pursue a DPA.  I suspect the Govt will stay away from that, but will continue to pursue its second line of pursuit, by PSPC adjusting the Federal acquisition policies to allow SNC to qualify for contracts even if it is found guilty of the bribery charges the RCMP laid (back in 2015 IIRC).

Regards 
G2G


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Mar 2019)

SNC is the foot note to the political story, unfortunately. 
Edit: unless there is some sort of further political controversy related to it, this one is done.
Trudeau isn't resigning. 
Andrew Scheer looks stupid. 
JWR and JP are out, new people are in.


----------



## Jed (8 Mar 2019)

I’m not sure I agree with that assessment Cloud Cover. How does Scheer look stupid? From what I see every thinking viewer sees JWR testimony as credible. People will not let this slide.


----------



## blacktriangle (8 Mar 2019)

As if anyone actually thought Justin was going to apologize or resign on his own accord?  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Mar 2019)

Interesting story about the PM and his interaction with one of his MPs. Tangential to the overall story, but still relevant.

And this on International Women's Day


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Mar 2019)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Interesting story about the PM and his interaction with one of his MPs. Tangential to the overall story, but still relevant.
> 
> And this on International Women's Day



Didn't want two women of colour quitting at the same time. Gotta have that magic women+minority quota. Trudeau is a classy guy.


----------



## Jed (9 Mar 2019)

Probably the wrong thread. Please move as required. I am totally disgusted with CBC to deflect from the most important story of PM / Goverrment nefarious doings and deflect over to crapola about US conspiracy theories, another grand apology by JT, etc. Ridiculous. Any fool can see through this bias. Amazing what 600,000 dollars can buy from Canada’s Pravda.


----------



## brihard (9 Mar 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Probably the wrong thread. Please move as required. I am totally disgusted with CBC to deflect from the most important story of PM / Goverrment nefarious doings and deflect over to crapola about US conspiracy theories, another grand apology by JT, etc. Ridiculous. Any fool can see through this bias. Amazing what 600,000 dollars can buy from Canada’s Pravda.



The news cycle is fast, and little has shaken loose in the past couple days to refresh the issue. Scheer went off half cocked with shrill calls for PMJT’s resignation rather than finding procedures and processes by which the matter could be stretched out; it was frankly amateurish. 

We have more testimony likely to come, and with that will come more coverage. Until then, the news needs fresh media to feed on.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Mar 2019)

In case you're interested, here's Friday's Federal Court decision (with a one-page summary downloadable @ a later post here) ...


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The news cycle is fast, and little has shaken loose in the past couple days to refresh the issue. Scheer went off half cocked with shrill calls for PMJT’s resignation rather than finding procedures and processes by which the matter could be stretched out; it was frankly amateurish.



Agree with you 100%. Super amateurish of him. It's like he has no idea with the gold egg laying hen he just had dumped into his lap. The shrill "you have to resign" calls are common place for frankly almost every issue that arises. He sucks.

Im hoping the PM's newer newist problem of the black female PM quitting, and the story of her hostile interaction with him fan the flames along. Maybe even open the doors up for others to come forward. Trudeau sounds like a control freak that doesn't like women disobeying him.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Trudeau sounds like a control freak that doesn't like women disobeying him.



Well, the apple never falls far from the tree!

How can the son of a womanizer like Trudeau senior, whose mother was no feminist (more like a free spirit that was right at home on the Gulf Islands - I dated such a free spirit for a while in my younger days: most freakishly difficult relationship to keep up  :nod become feminist, other than as a rebellious stand against parental authority? That doesn't make him a real feminist, but someone who learns to wrap himself in the cloak to aggravate parents - or people, IMHO.


----------



## Haggis (9 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Trudeau sounds like a control freak that doesn't like women anybody disobeying him.



FTFY.

Sadly, as soon as the pre-election budget is released, followed closely by Minster Blair's recommendations for gun bans, the new AG will direct the SNC DPA to be issued, citing highly publicized "revised legal opinions".  The nails will be driven into the coffin of JWR's error in judgement and then the Liberals will be polling back in majority territory.  If the PM was smart, that's when he'd call an early snap election before something else went wrong for Team Red.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (9 Mar 2019)

Haggis:

Are you suggesting that Trudeau could win one more election at this stage by (1) giving lots of candy in a pre-electoral budget, then (2) doing something that is very unpopular in the West, and possibly in good part of Ontario (giving a bribe ridden corporation from Quebec a goody in the form of a DPA) and then (3) breaking publicly yet another law for no good reason (calling a snap election outside the date called for by the fixed date election law without valid crisis to warrant it)?

I am far from convinced.

BTW, I have worked in the past with the department of justice lawyers and can tell you a couple of things. First, the DOJ does not get outside legal opinions. It has all the expert lawyers it needs in house to provide legal advice to the government. I am not talking about the public prosecution services here, but the actual DOJ lawyers. Second,the DOJ has  expert lawyers in criminal law that the DPPS and the Attorney-General probably consulted with before making their decision on a DPA. These lawyers, again, are not prosecutors but world beating experts on criminal law matters who are there to advise on the drafting and application of any such law. Again here, they don't take outside advice on their area of expertise.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Mar 2019)

100%- except for an injunction, there's no way to prevent a snap election if the GG approves it. It's unlikely the GG would not and the government would then be in a tough position. *

The PPS is generally an in house org, but with about 450 extra hired gun "agents" for specialist niche prosecutions or drug court prosecutions. The DoJ generally only hires external counsel for opinions for advice about the laws of another country, or where for some rare circumstance they are in a conflict of interest. ( ie the Minister and minions are accused or under investigation and require counsel themselves for legal actions they've initiated or advised on). Very rare, but some ( certainly not all) law suits for malicious prosecution  come to mind.

Government agencies, like CBC, NEB etc, have in house counsel but routinely hire external counsel.

*Wikipedia

"When introducing the legislation, Harper stated that "fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."[7] However, despite the amendments to the legislation, the prime minister is still free to request an election at any time. As the Bill C-16 amendments to the Canada Elections Act clearly state "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion", the change effectively altered only the maximum duration of a parliament by ensuring that it ends no later than October of the fourth calendar year after its commencement, while leaving the possibility of an earlier end unaffected.[4]

This situation was illustrated by the dissolution of parliament at PM Harper's request on September 7, 2008. This led Democracy Watch to initiate proceedings in federal court against the Crown-in-Council, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Governor General of Canada, challenging the decision to call an election prior to the fixed election date. Judge Michel M.J. Shore dismissed the matter, saying the applicants who launched the suit "do not demonstrate a proper understanding of the separation of powers," since "[t]he remedy for the applicant's contention is not for the Federal Court to decide, but rather one of the count of the ballot box".[8] The court effectively found that the fixed election dates were not binding on the prime minister or legally enforceable by the courts."


----------



## Haggis (9 Mar 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Haggis:
> 
> Are you suggesting that Trudeau could win one more election at this stage by (1) giving lots of candy in a pre-electoral budget, then (2) doing something that is very unpopular in the West, and possibly in good part of Ontario (giving a bribe ridden corporation from Quebec a goody in the form of a DPA) and then (3) breaking publicly yet another law for no good reason (calling a snap election outside the date called for by the fixed date election law without valid crisis to warrant it)?



Are you saying that anything postulated above is beyond the realm of possibility given current events?

Remember, the PMO, the PCO and the new AG believe that obtaining outside legal advice is completely acceptable and, in fact, desirable if that will result in the intended outcome of a DPA.  Why else would they have recommended it to JWR?


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> In case you're interested, here's Friday's Federal Court decision ...



An excellent read.  Thanks for the link, Milnews.

G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Mar 2019)

An ancillary concern of mine is the possibility of the reputation of the Supreme Court being tarnished by the actions of retired judges.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Mar 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> An excellent read.  Thanks for the link, Milnews.
> 
> G2G


Not a problem - happy to feed the debate stew.

In fact, for those interested in the Readers Digest verison, here's the official one-page Federal Court summary of the decision.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Mar 2019)

Looks like Ms Copps is doubling down:

Twitter

Twitter

I sense she's not coming across very well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Mar 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Looks like Ms Copps is doubling down:
> 
> Twitter
> 
> ...


Some highlights


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Mar 2019)

From what I've read "9000" jobs aren't at stake if snc gets barred from federal contracts.
There is still a ton of provincial contracts they can bid on that are big money. 
They are still involved in federal and provincial projects that won't be completed for a few years. 
They're still involved in contract negotiations for a bunch of contracts. 

The 9000 jobs lost is a bullshit a statement as all their anti-gun crap.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Some highlights



I'd be willing to bet the energy sector in Alberta (used to) employ(s) more FN people than SNC does.


----------



## Haggis (9 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The 9000 jobs lost is a bullshit a statement as all their anti-gun crap.



Gerald Butts was pressed by the Justice Committee to back up the 9,000 jobs at risk claim.  He could not.


----------



## Brad Sallows (10 Mar 2019)

That's one of the points that leads me to conclude those people are utterly devoid of any sense of what they sound like.  A whole industry can be left to fend for itself in the gusts of the global economy and hurricanes of domestic provincial politics, but let one company important to the LPC sniffle...


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Not a problem - happy to feed the debate stew.
> 
> In fact, for those interested in the Readers Digest verison, here's the official one-page Federal Court summary of the decision.


So, next speculative tea-leaf reading to throw out there:  is SNC-Lavalin going to take this to the next court level?  

According to the Federal Court's info-machine, next stop would be Federal Court of Appeal.

op:


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Gerald Butts was pressed by the Justice Committee to back up the 9,000 jobs at risk claim.  He could not.



I'm not surprised. Damage is done though with everyone believing and repeating that figure.


SNC's quite the company.



> OTTAWA — New details have emerged about Quebec engineering giant SNC-Lavalin’s cozy relationship with the son of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, including the company allegedly hiring prostitutes for him during a visit to Canada a decade ago





> Receipts gathered during an investigation of a former SNC-Lavalin executive show $30,000 in payments to Saadi Gadhafi for sexual services in Canada in 2008, La Presse reported. The documentation can now be revealed publicly because the prosecution of Stéphane Roy, former vice-president of SNC-Lavalin, on fraud and bribery charges was dropped last week due to court delays.
> 
> In 2008, Gadhafi was ostensibly travelling to Montreal and Toronto to conduct business and improve his English, at the invitation of SNC-Lavalin. He had helped the company secure billions in public contracts in Libya — thanks also to millions in bribes to Libyan officials, the RCMP has alleged — and visited Canada on three previous occasions. But he spent much of his time on other extracurricular pursuits, according to La Presse’s reporting.





> The bodyguards handled Gadhafi’s expenses and provided receipts to SNC-Lavalin, according to court testimony by an RCMP investigator. Transactions they wrote in as “companion services” in their expense reports would cost between $600 and $7,500 each. Close to $10,000 in services went to a single escort service in Vancouver. Other payments went to a Montreal strip club and covered events at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, such as box seats for a Spice Girls concert.
> The investigation showed that SNC-Lavalin was writing off the expenses as associated with construction projects in Libya, La Presse reported, with the total bill for Gadhafi’s trip totalling nearly $2 million.


https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/snc-lavalin-paid-for-gadhafi-sons-debauchery-while-he-was-in-canada-report


----------



## Haggis (10 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'm not surprised. Damage is done though with everyone believing and repeating that figure.



Just like the Liberal's oft repeated and thoroughly debunked claim that "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced".

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> From what I've read "9000" jobs aren't at stake if snc gets barred from federal contracts.
> There is still a ton of provincial contracts they can bid on that are big money.
> They are still involved in federal and provincial projects that won't be completed for a few years.
> They're still involved in contract negotiations for a bunch of contracts.
> ...



Construction workers change employers all the time. They go where the work is.
If SNC is unable to bid on government contracts, other Canadian companies will win and fulfill the contracts.
The only SNC job losses will be in the HQ building in Montreal. The real workers aren't lost jobs either, they'll just go where the money is.

Canadian construction is a bucket of water. If you take out a cup of SNC participation, it doesn't leave a hole.

The 9,000 job losses is a lame duck to distract from the issue. It's a false narrative. Fake news, so to speak.

As for angry Shiela, she making it abundantly clear why she's no longer sitting in government.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Mar 2019)

There is corruption everywhere. Taking home the pens from work is stealing from your employer. Minor in nature though. The question is “what level of corruption are we going to tolerate?”

And I won’t say what I think of Shrill Sheila....


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (10 Mar 2019)

I think her tweet has to be the lowest thing I've ever read in Canadian politics....


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Mar 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think her tweet has to be the lowest thing I've ever read in Canadian politics....



Remember “I’m entitled to my entitlements”. Things haven’t changed.


----------



## Haggis (10 Mar 2019)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> I think her tweet has to be the lowest thing I've ever read in Canadian politics....



......so far.  We're still months from the next election.  It'll get lower.


----------



## RocketRichard (10 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Just like the Liberal's oft repeated and thoroughly debunked claim that "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced".
> 
> Joseph Goebbels would be proud.


Comparing this to Goebbels is a bit much. #stopthehype



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Haggis (10 Mar 2019)

RomeoJuliet said:
			
		

> Comparing this to Goebbels is a bit much. #stopthehype



Taking just one lie (gun stats) in isolation, maybe.  But, like the music of the 80's "the hits just keep on comin'!" from the Liberal propaganda machine.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Mar 2019)

https://twitter.com/sdbcraig/status/1104519047511769088


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Mar 2019)

Apparently someone posted it without filling in the blanks.....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157203727693945&set=a.94018163944&type=3&eid=ARANwrfGqXSvEcKfDRZWfdYbgLSOSYvzkVjNYGe3PgLT-vq_PhsXd9ZxY-frhG470rODaVpOYIiF3CYE


----------



## Cloud Cover (10 Mar 2019)

All hail the Vomitarium.


----------



## Remius (11 Mar 2019)

My guess is that they sent out the talking points they wanted them to say.  They probably said, make into your own words but cover all these points. 

I blame the state of our educational system where people can't write or come up with a different way of saying something. 

They really are not helping themselves...


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> ... I blame the state of our educational system where people can't write or come up with a different way of saying something ...


When someone in this situation gets "messaging," "key points," "talking points," or the like from whoever's above them (no matter what party is in power), I suspect that more than 8 times out of 10, the end user doesn't have any discretion.  Hence the term "message _control_."


			
				Remius said:
			
		

> They really are not helping themselves...


 :nod:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> My guess is that they sent out the talking points they wanted them to say.  They probably said, make into your own words but cover all these points.
> 
> I blame the state of our educational system where people can't write or come up with a different way of saying something.
> 
> They really are not helping themselves...



No I think it's the same level of "message control" that the CPC started.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Mar 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> No I think it's the same level of "message control" that the CPC started.


And, to be fair, also exerted by Team Orange during at least one federal election campaign even if they weren't in power.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2019)

This could get interesting. Possibly out of the control of the PMO. This appears to be, no longer, a Canadian problem to hide. CBC, Global and CTV may have to compete their pro trudeau spin against international news agencies that don't receive liberal bribes.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/oecd-announces-it-is-monitoring-snc-lavalin-scandal-raising-prospect-canada-has-violated-international-anti-bribery-agreement




> OECD announces it is monitoring SNC-Lavalin scandal, raising prospect Canada has violated international anti-bribery agreement
> 'The OECD Working Group on Bribery... notes that the Canadian authorities stress that they are transparent and independent'
> 
> March 11, 2019
> ...



I'd love nothing better than to see an international full court press against this government.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> ... CBC, Global and CTV may have to compete their pro trudeau spin against international news agencies that don't receive liberal bribes.
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/oecd-announces-it-is-monitoring-snc-lavalin-scandal-raising-prospect-canada-has-violated-international-anti-bribery-agreement


But you're linking to another potentially #BoughtMedia outlet here - who's left to believe, then?  

Carrying that bit further, this from the OECD info-machine (also attached if link doesn't work for you) ...


> *OECD will follow Canadian proceedings addressing allegations of political interference in foreign bribery prosecution*
> 
> 11/03/2019 - The OECD Working Group on Bribery is concerned by recent allegations of interference in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin that are subject to proceedings in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The Canadian engineering and construction group is the subject of an ongoing prosecution into allegations of the bribery of Libyan officials to obtain a Can$ 58-million contract to restore a water pipeline.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> But you're linking to another potentially #BoughtMedia outlet here - who's left to believe, then?




Ahhh, mea culpa  :facepalm: Just when I thought...........
 ;D


----------



## Loachman (12 Mar 2019)

Not a lot of time to keep up on this for the last few days, so I'm catching up a little.

I've left out some good articles, but they had become quickly outdated or had been superceded.

I've noticed some more Liberal-positive articles lately, but cannot say that this is a trend or not as I am only able to look at a small selection of the total number. I still see no indication of a "bought" media. Digging is still occurring, and all sides seem to be getting aired.

More Liberal "apologists" seem to be appearing/re-appearing in comments sections. I do not normally read comment sections, but have skimmed through those on some articles to try and gauge general opinions and trends.

I do not see any reason for the Liberals to attempt a snap election as at least one person has suggested in one of the (now three) threads in here that have been discussing this issue. They would have been slammed early on, and I think that they are more likely to hope that this will blow over or that they can patch it up. That may happen, but, over a month later, it is still bubbling away and more will likely come out that could cause further damage - especially if a public inquiry begins or the RCMP begin interviewing key people or other MPs or staffmembers quit or turn.

Should they ask the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament, it will, of course, be her decision and I cannot help but think that she would be reminded of that more than once.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-2-minute-crisis-fix-for-trudeau-youre-welcome/

The 2 minute crisis fix for Trudeau. You're welcome.

Jason Lietaer: The PM gave his opponents a gift today when he could easily have turned the page on the SNC-Lavalin crisis. Here's what he should have done.

by Jason Lietaer

Mar 7, 2019

A month into the biggest crisis the government has faced, the Prime Minister called the scribes to the National Press Theatre to finally put an end to the debacle.

He'd lost two high-ranking female cabinet ministers who said they'd lost confidence. He'd lost his best friend and closest advisor from his office. He was minutes away from being challenged on Twitter by another one of his female MPs, Celina Caesar-Chavannes. "I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?"

You knew it was important because they did it before breakfast.

He had cancelled all of his appointments the afternoon before. He had huddled with the respected ambassador to the U.S. to help him turn this thing around. He had had four weeks to think about what he was going to say. He's a master at emotionally connecting with an audience. He was finally going to get it right.

It didn't turn out so hot.

When you're struggling with a big decision in politics, one of the things you should always ask yourself is: "What do my opponents want me to do?" Then you do the opposite.

<snip>

Luckily for his opponents, Trudeau didn't do the smart thing. He looked around after a month of taking on water and thought to himself: "more of the same."

<snip>

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-why-fight-criminal-charges-in-court-when-you-can-lobby?video_autoplay=true

Andrew Coyne: Why fight criminal charges in court when you can lobby?

SNC-Lavalin chose to fight the charges in government, rather than court. They did so, we may conclude, because they were given reason to believe it would work

Andrew Coyne    

March 8, 2019 8:02 PM EST

At last the Liberal government has that outside legal opinion it was seeking. A federal court judge has ruled the director of public prosecutions' decision to bring SNC-Lavalin to trial on charges of fraud and corruption, rather than to negotiate a "remediation agreement" as the company preferred, was a proper exercise of her prosecutorial discretion.

By extension she has endorsed the former attorney general's refusal to overrule that decision. For the flipside of prosecutorial discretion is prosecutorial independence, hallowed by centuries of common law and, as the judge wrote, "essential and fundamental to the criminal justice system."

<snip>

The impression left is of a mass swarming of the attorney general's office and that of the PPSC. If so it would mirror SNC-Lavalin's swarming of the upper reaches of government. We have heard much, again, of the many visits by lobbyists to various ministers and other officials, all of them recorded in the lobbyist registry. We are only lately hearing about rather more direct, and unregistered interventions.

One is an extraordinary phone call from the chairman of SNC-Lavalin, Kevin Lynch, to the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, on Oct. 15. The phone call was extraordinary in two respects. One, Lynch is a former clerk himself, hired as chairman in 2017, by which time the company's assault on Ottawa was well under way. Two, Wernick, by his own account, had to explain to the former clerk that "he would have to go through the attorney general and the director of public prosecutions through his counsel."

Then there is the letter from the company president, Neil Bruce, to the prime minister, dated the same day, complaining of the company's inability to make the prosecutor see things their way. Why, she had even declined to meet with the former Supreme Court judge, Frank Iacobucci, whom the company had retained as counsel, the man Wernick pointedly described to Wilson-Raybould as "no shrinking violet."It says a great deal that the company's response to being charged with serious crimes was not to fight the charges in court, but to fight them in government: to lobby the politicians, to attempt to intimidate the prosecutors, to arrange calls between old civil service chums. They did so, it is logical to conclude, because they thought it would work - because they were given reason to believe it would work.

https://www.straight.com/news/1211841/lets-not-kid-ourselves-justin-trudeau-has-been-mp-snc-lavalin-very-long-time

Let's not kid ourselves - Justin Trudeau has been the MP for SNC-Lavalin for a very long time

by Charlie Smith on March 9th, 2019 at 8:20 AM

<snip>

Then there's the Trudeau government's support for pipelines, including Enbridge's Line 3, which will likely open this year.

The Trudeau government also bought the aging Trans Mountain system from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion. An expansion will gobble up another $9.3 billion to triple shipments of diluted bitumen from Alberta to the B.C. coast.

I repeat: a quarter of SNC-Lavalin's revenues come from oil and gas.

So when the aging Trans Mountain infrastructure needs upgrading, there's a good chance for more revenue for SNC-Lavalin.

But a criminal conviction would get in the way because it would be barred from bidding on federal projects - and the Trans Mountain pipeline system, right now, is federally owned.

<snip>

The national media have been big cheerleaders of the pipeline purchase.

These newspaper and broadcasting companies have also collected a whopping amount of advertising revenue from supporters of the Trans Mountain pipeline project and the Trudeau government.

Yet now, like Capt. Renault in Casablanca, they're blowing the whistle on Trudeau's dealings with SNC-Lavalin in connection with its court case.

They're shocked, just shocked, by the lengths to which the prime minister would go to assist the corporation.

The only thing missing from this movie is a dewy-eyed Ingrid Bergman. 

(Lengthy, as the author admits in his second paragraph, and bitingly critical - Loachman):

https://www.straight.com/news/1212021/martyn-brown-another-sad-week-court-crimson-king-courtesy-justin-trudeau-and-his

Martyn Brown: Another sad week in the Court of the Crimson King, courtesy of Justin Trudeau and his Liberal lickspittles

by Martyn Brown on March 10th, 2019 at 4:28 AM

What another sad week it has been in the Court of the Crimson King in response to the SNC-Lavalin scandal, courtesy of Justin Trudeau and his Liberal lickspittles on the Commons justice committee.

The whole spectacle is as insufferable as a prog rock concert and as hellish as the cover image on King Crimson's signature long-player from 1969. (A genre that inspired this excruciatingly long tome, offered as ever in self-indulgence. Feel free to jump to the concluding section "In search of a remediation agreement" at any time.)

Indeed, I can think of no better soundtrack for the upcoming election campaign than In the Court of the Crimson King.

From one groove to the next, #LavScam is likewise a chaotic mess - too ridiculous to fathom, too appalling to ignore, and too atrocious to abide.

<snip>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-snc-lavalin-trudeau-polls-1.5048419

Liberals have taken a polling hit over SNC Lavalin - but Trudeau's taken a bigger one

The prime minister's personal polling numbers aren't recovering, but the Liberal Party's numbers might be

Éric Grenier Posted: Mar 09, 2019 4:00 AM ET


<snip>

The CBC Poll Tracker, an aggregation of all publicly available polls, has recorded a slip of over four points for the Liberals over the last month, putting the party behind the Conservatives for the first time in nearly a year.

But the losses suffered by the party are less significant than those suffered by Trudeau himself on questions relating to his own personal brand, the performance of his government and Canadians' preferences for prime minister.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5035881/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-michael-wernick-crisis/

After failing to change the channel on SNC-Lavalin, Trudeau could try firing Wernick: crisis expert

By Amanda Connolly National Online Journalist Global News    

Everything Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has done to try changing the channel on the SNC-Lavalin affair has failed, one crisis communications expert says.

So he could try firing Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick.

In an interview with the West Block‘s Mercedes Stephenson, Mike Van Soelen, a managing principal at the crisis communications firm Navigator, said Trudeau failed last week to take clear action when confronted with unanswered questions about the accusations of attempted political interference made in what he described as "credible" testimony by former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould.

<snip>

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/does-justin-trudeau-know-what-hes-doing/

Does Justin Trudeau know what he's doing?

Stephen Maher: The SNC-Lavalin affair raises more corrosive questions about the Prime Minister's competence than his ethics 

by Stephen Maher

Mar 11, 2019

<snip>

It is possible that Trudeau and his people let their thinking be swayed by powerful lobbyists, that they didn't realize what they were doing was wrong because they failed to understand the law. But Trudeau chose his clerk, and the other senior aides who badgered Wilson-Raybould and ignored her when she tried to warn them off.

Their errors are his errors, and his inept management of the political fallout—his refusal to admit that his people were wrong—raises a nasty question: Does he know what he is doing?

One of the Prime Minister's biggest challenges as he spends this week in Florida, plotting his comeback, is how he is going to get things done in a town where everyone is wondering that.

The departure of Jane Philpott, who gave up her seat at the cabinet table because she no longer had confidence in the way Trudeau handled this matter, is especially disquieting, because she is held in such high regard. Philpott, who spent a decade doing admirable medical work in Niger, won praise from Indigenous leaders for her no-nonsense approach to improving service delivery, and from opposition politicians, bureaucrats and journalists.

She worked closely with Trudeau for years and no longer has faith in him.

And the Prime Minister seems to have lost his sangfroid. He lost his cool with Celina Caesar-Chavannes, the MP for Whitby and his former parliamentary secretary. She says that when she called him to tell him she had decided not to run again, he accused her of disloyalty, asked her to delay her announcement and lost his temper on their next meeting, storming out of the room.

The departure of three impressive women sends a more damaging message about Trudeau than anything the ethics commissioner will rule about this affair. The fact that we don't know exactly what he did to irk them does nothing to improve his image. They know him, and they have lost faith in him.

Trudeau has an unusual advantage in politics because he has been around it all his life. In opposition, he seemed decisive and ethical, dealing aggressively with sexual misconduct by two of his MPs, expelling Liberal senators from his caucus and proactively releasing information about his finances.

But his princely confidence seems to come with a princely sense of entitlement. He has, after all, spent his life having strangers fawn over him. His ill-conceived trips to the Aga Khan's island and India suggest that he forgets that a prime minister is the chairman of a committee, not a prince.

<snip>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-wilson-raybould-trudeau-1.5051909

Four questions without answers about the SNC-Lavalin scandal
Social Sharing

Will this controversy fade, or fester? It may depend on how these questions play out

David Thurton, David Cochrane Posted: Mar 12, 2019 4:00 AM ET

<snip>

Having Canada's attorney general intervene in a matter that was closed entails some geopolitical risk as well.

China's foreign ministry already has questioned whether the Canadian government is enjoying a double standard in its legal treatment of foreign and domestic firms — arresting Huawei's Chief Financial Officer Meng Wanzhou on an American extradition request while pursuing a legal tool that would allow a major Canadian employer to avoid a criminal trial.

Former attorney general Irwin Cotler said Beijing is already spinning the scandal in its favour.

"I see this as really as a political manipulation and misrepresentation of the rule of law in Canada," Cotler told CBC's Power and Politics Thursday.

<snip>

Although the PMO has warned that proceeding with criminal charges against SNC Lavalin could put about 9,000 Canadian jobs at risk, experts say that kind of job loss is unlikely.

<snip>

And even if large numbers of SNC-Lavalin employees find themselves thrown out of work by a conviction, they'd likely be able to pick up work elsewhere since skilled engineers are in high demand, as the CBC's David Cochrane points out in the CBC Frontburner podcast.

<snip>

The PMO's actions on this file are the subject of two investigations - one by the Commons justice committee and the other by the federal ethics commissioner.

After hearing from all of its witnesses, the committee will issue a final report. It's not clear what will be in that report and whether it will have the unanimous support of all parties represented on the committee.

The ethics commissioner is digging into whether Trudeau or his staffers violated section nine of the Conflict of Interest Act.

The section prohibits senior government officials from influencing the decisions of another person so as to "improperly further another person's private interests."

But in the end, the act doesn't give the commissioner the power to impose fines or any type of punishment.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/lametti-briefing-book-justice-minister-1.5051930

Remediation agreements flagged as 'hot issue' in new justice minister's briefing book

David Lametti was told that any particular case is a matter of 'independent prosecutorial discretion'

Kathleen Harris Posted: Mar 11, 2019 3:54 PM ET

(Edited for clarity)


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Ahhh, mea culpa  :facepalm: Just when I thought...........
> ;D


They're everywhere, dude - we can't get away ... ;D


----------



## Kirkhill (12 Mar 2019)

> *In a significant blow for the Prime Minister, the Attorney General said "the legal risk remains unchanged"*.



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/03/12/brexit-vote-latest-news-meaningful-vote-theresa-may-deal-irish/?li_source=LI&li_medium=li-recommendation-widget

Twice now, the British version of Wilson-Raybould, Geoffrey Cox, has gone against his Prime Minister and her government's policy on Brexit, a matter of considerably greater national interest than whether or not some engineering firm gets to continue doing business.

And yet, still he keeps his job.


----------



## Loachman (12 Mar 2019)

https://www.campaignresearch.ca/single-post/2019/03/10/A-third-of-Canadian%E2%80%99s-want-the-Prime-Minister-to-resign-immediately

A third of Canadian’s want the Prime Minister to resign immediately

March 11, 2019

Eli Yufest

Campaign Research’s National Omnibus for March had 1,893 eligible Canadian voters participate. Regarding the on-going SNC-Lavalin affair, there was near universal awareness (85%). Baby boomers were much more aware (97%), than were millennials (64%).

Respondents were presented with statements made by both the Prime Minister and the former Attorney General regarding their version of events. Overall, Canadians found Jody Wilson-Raybould to be more convincing with 49% agreeing with her version of events and only 13% agreeing with Justin Trudeau’s version. 16% thought that neither were believable and 22% were not sure.  Interestingly, only 37% of Liberal voters believed the Prime Minister, while 15% believed Jody Wilson-Raybould’s version of events. 19% of Liberal voters believed neither and 29% were unsure.  82% of Conservative voters believed Wilson-Raybould’s testimony and virtually none (2%) believing Trudeau’s.

Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer had called upon the Prime Minister to resign and respondents were asked if they agreed or disagreed with this sentiment. 35% of Canadians agreed, while 45% disagreed and 20% were unsure. In Alberta, support for his resignation was much higher than the average (59%), while in Quebec, 52% disagreed that the Prime Minister should resign. Among voters that remain undecided on who they will vote for in the coming election, 22% agreed that the Prime Minister should resign, 30% disagreed and half were unsure (48%).

Respondents were then given a choice between an “immediate resignation”, or a “resignation after the election” and “no resignation at all”. 30% of Canadians wanted an immediate resignation, while 16% wanted him to wait until after the election before resigning and 37% preferred that Prime Minister Trudeau did not resign.

<snip>

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/03/12/snc-lavalin-board-chair-a-former-top-bureaucrat-may-have-run-afoul-of-federal-lobbying-rules/191972

SNC-Lavalin board chair, a former top bureaucrat, may have run afoul of federal lobbying rules

By Beatrice Paez Mar. 12, 2019

An SNC-Lavalin spokesperson, who spoke on behalf of Kevin Lynch, declined to comment directly on whether he was aware of the obligation paid board members have to register if they make appeals to public officials.

Former top bureaucrat Kevin Lynch, who now serves as board chairman for SNC-Lavalin, may have violated federal lobbying rules in failing to disclose a phone call with Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick. Ethics watchdog Democracy Watch is planning to file a complaint with the Lobbying Commissioner’s Office that would call on it to rule whether Mr. Lynch ran afoul of the Lobbying Act.

Mr. Wernick testified last week before the House Justice Committee that he took a call last fall, on Oct. 15, 2018, from Mr. Lynch - a former clerk of the Privy Council - who expressed “frustration” that a remediation deal was not being considered for the embattled company. That call was not listed on the federal lobbying registry. SNC-Lavalin is registered to lobby federally under its CEO, Neil Bruce. Mr. Lynch, who is a paid board member, is not. 

Federal lobbying rules state that board members who are paid beyond the reimbursement of travel expenses and who engage in lobbying activities have to register as a consultant lobbyist and disclose contact with public officials they lobby by filing a communication report. Board members who are not considered employees have to register separately as consultants. 

<snip>

What falls under registrable lobbying activity can be broad and open to interpretation. According to the commissioner’s office, lobbying activities that require disclosure include discussions on the development or amendment of “any federal law, regulation, policy or program,” or the “awarding of any federal monetary grant, contribution, or other financial benefit.” It’s unclear whether the commissioner would rule that, in advocating for a remediation deal for SNC, that Mr. Lynch should have registered that contact. But in this particular case, Mr. Conacher said, the commissioner could cite a provision in the act that states that, when it comes to communication on the “development or amendment of any policy or program of the Government of Canada,” that contact has to be logged.

<snip>

https://www.nbc-2.com/story/40107697/canadas-prime-minister-vacations-in-north-captiva-amid-scandal

Canada's prime minister vacations in North Captiva amid scandal

Justin Trudeau left on his plane Monday evening just as quickly as he came.

Monday, March 11th 2019, 8:49 PM EDT by Emma Green & Dave Elias

NORTH CAPTIVA ISLAND, Fla. - The Prime Minister of Canada made a visit to North Captiva Island while embroiled in a scandal back at home.

Justin Trudeau's maple leaf-emblazoned airplane was seen on Page Field Monday, where he flew for a low-key private vacation.

He rented a couple of houses for his family and his security detail on the south end of the island that you can only get to by boat.

<snip>

https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2019/03/canada-trudeau-feminism-wilson-raybauld/584677/

Justin Trudeau’s Feminist Brand Is Imploding

The resignations of two female cabinet ministers suggest Canada might not be as committed to gender equality as the prime minister wants the world to believe.

Katherine Laidlaw 2:56 PM ET

TORONTO - The day Justin Trudeau was sworn in as Canada’s prime minister, he stood on Ottawa’s Parliament Hill flanked by the 15 women and 15 men he’d appointed to his cabinet. A reporter asked him why he felt such a gender balance was important and Trudeau, pausing for only a beat, held his palms up to the sky as he replied, “Because it’s 2015.” It was a sound bite heard around the world.

For Canadians who’d spent the past nine years under Stephen Harper, a Conservative who wouldn’t even use the word feminist, Trudeau’s response was refreshing, energizing, even exciting. (Not to everyone - Loachman) The newly elected Liberal prime minister had campaigned on a platform of transparency, emphasizing feminism and indigenous rights as points of focus for his government in the years to come. And though appointing a cabinet with equal male and female representation didn’t guarantee a feminist agenda, it was an important step, one that several countries - including Colombia, Ethiopia, France, and Spain - would follow.

<snip>

From across the aisle, one Conservative MP, Michelle Rempel, put it plainly. “Trudeau came out and asked for strong women, and he got them,” she told me in an interview last week.

<snip>

“In a way, the prime minister has created two martyrs here,” says Sylvia Bashevkin, a political-science professor at the University of Toronto. “There may be a number of people who decide not to run again because of a sense that the wheels are falling off the bus.”

Evidence suggests that when it comes to politics and gender, a role-modeling effect takes place when women are elected and promoted. It works like a tipping point: A politically engaged but hesitant woman is more likely to run for office if she sees other women in positions of political power, says Michael Morden, the research director at the Samara Center for Democracy, a nonpartisan think tank based in Toronto. “We also know that women in cabinet have a more powerful effect than just women in the legislature,” Morden told me. As such, he said, the opposite might also be true: Fewer women in the cabinet could mean fewer women encouraged to run for office.

Still, the situation could yet have a positive effect. “It’s radically unusual to see caucus members trying to hold their leader to account like this in Canada,” Morden said. “Success is reassuring; it shows that something can be done.” That is, women watching cabinet ministers standing up to a prime minister rather than kowtowing to party loyalty might inspire them to get involved—not for gender, but for justice. Rempel, the Conservative MP, agrees. Wilson-Raybould and Philpott “haven’t removed themselves from the conversation,” she told me. “They are the conversation.”

Women were losing confidence in Trudeau’s government long before this crisis, with the margin between Liberal and Conservative female voters having narrowed considerably in the past year. But over the past month, Trudeau’s feminist branding has splintered. Wilson-Raybould was replaced as minister of justice with a white male MP. That the cabinet’s major fumbles over the past three years have come from men—including Finance Minister Bill Morneau, who has not been shuffled despite a fumble of his own, and Trudeau himself—makes the decision to demote the first indigenous female justice minister out of the portfolio even more mystifying. To most Canadians, according to an Ipsos poll conducted last week, the account offered by the prime minister’s office in response to Wilson-Raybould’s doesn’t check out.

<snip>

Back home, Trudeau’s fondness for antics such as balancing babies in the palm of his hand, cuddling pandas at the zoo, and posing with his hands in a heart before a pink backdrop for the press have led to one Toronto writer calling him “the political equivalent of a YouTube puppy video”—satisfying, but lacking depth. It’s a criticism that has followed Trudeau since the start of his term, but one that feels even more salient now. For Bashevkin, the political-science professor, what this scandal illustrates most starkly is the prime minister’s and his team’s lack of experience.

<snip>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mario-dion-ethics-leave-1.5053442

Ethics watchdog probing SNC-Lavalin affair taking 'prolonged' medical leave
Social Sharing

Mario Dion 'will resume his duties as soon as he is able,' says his office

Catharine Tunney CBC News Posted: Mar 12, 2019 3:31 PM ET

<snip>

Dion's office said it will continue to gather information on ongoing investigations and offer MPs and other public office holders advice.

"Despite these exceptional circumstances, the work of the Office will continue," says the statement.

<snip>

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/08/its-crunch-time-for-the-lead-players-in-the-snc-lavalin-affair.html

It’s crunch time for the lead players in the SNC-Lavalin affair

By Chantal Hébert

Mon., March 11, 2019

<snip>

And then it is one thing for Trudeau to get his ministerial ducks back in a row and another more difficult task to adjust to running a government without Gerald Butts in the Prime Minister’s Office.

No government can lose a player in a role as central as that of the former principal secretary without entering into a zone of relative turbulence, especially in an election year and especially with Trudeau himself caught in the crosswinds.

The time may be coming - as it does with every issue - when public fatigue with the SNC-Lavalin story sets in. But whether the government is in a sound enough place to do better than lurch to an increasingly competitive fall election is not a given. The presentation next week of the last Liberal budget of the current Parliament will offer some clues.


----------



## Cloud Cover (12 Mar 2019)

Dear Federal Government: Ignorance of the Law is No Excuse.  https://www.thelawyersdaily.ca/business/articles/10856/dear-federal-government-ignorance-of-law-is-no-excuse-heather-macivor-

The article at the lawyers daily is surprisingly not behind the paywall. Heather MacIvor takes it to the PMO and schools them on their own laws. 

"Well then. If that’s what the law is for, no wonder so many people are confused by the refusal to negotiate with SNC-Lavalin! Let’s just overrule that wrongheaded Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), get a remediation agreement, and save those “nine thousand jobs” that Mr. Butts repeatedly emphasized in his March 6 testimony before the House of Commons Justice Committee. But the wording of Part XXII.1 of the Criminal Code (the Code), which contains the new remediation agreement regime, tells a rather different story."


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (13 Mar 2019)

Seems the 9,000 jobs is a myth.  A number of media outlets have looked into this number and turns out that SNC LAV may actually have between 2500 and 3400 jobs in Quebec (depending on who you read) and less than 9,000 in all of Canada.  

Interestingly, when May asked Butts if he had any independent evidence that would support the argument that a criminal prosecution of SNC would result in job loss, he couldn't recall anything specific.


----------



## Rifleman62 (13 Mar 2019)

> Chantal Hébert - March 11, 2019
> 
> And then it is one thing for Trudeau to get his ministerial ducks back in a row and another more difficult task to adjust to running a government without Gerald Butts in the Prime Minister’s Office.
> 
> No government can lose a player in a role as central as that of the former principal secretary without entering into a zone of relative turbulence, especially in an election year and especially with Trudeau himself caught in the crosswinds.



I really wonder if Butts is really gone. As Trudeau's best bud, he will still be in a position to manipulate the puppet strings. He just will just not be available 24/7 or all day during business hours. Surely the two will still meet regularly.

The LPC may have even hired him as a "consultant" so he will still have a pay cheque.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Mar 2019)

I wonder if he's in Florida with trudeau? I doubt Butts is gone. I speculated earlier that this would just give him free reign and no accountability to the system. I wouldn't be surprised to see him hanging around and running things as a volunteer. I don't doubt there are many aspects of this government that are contingent on future favours and payments of some sort, including butts.


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I really wonder if Butts is really gone.



I doubt he's gone. Just more free to move around now with less oversight. Like one of Wernick's shadowy assassins


----------



## Haggis (13 Mar 2019)

Annnnd, it looks like we're done with this.  Nothing to see here, Canada.  Watch for our Budget Day goodies next week!


----------



## Jarnhamar (13 Mar 2019)

What pieces of garbage.


----------



## Kat Stevens (13 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Annnnd, it looks like we're done with this.  Nothing to see here, Canada.  Watch for our Budget Day goodies next week!



I wish I could say I'm surprised.


----------



## blacktriangle (13 Mar 2019)

I better get started on my welcome baskets for returning jihadis. Four more years of sunny ways, here we come!


----------



## Loachman (13 Mar 2019)

That should tempt a lot of journalists to pile on...

There is only one reason to prevent somebody from speaking: It can only be worse for them than being accused of a cover-up.

Meanwhile, digging continues.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/trudeau-government-signed-a-secret-deal-with-snc-only-days-after-2015-election/

Trudeau government signed a secret deal with SNC only days after 2015 election

by Ali Taghva Mar 12

According to the National Observer, the Trudeau government announced a confidential deal with SNC, just "four days after Trudeau’s first throne speech in 2015."

The National Observer article goes into far more depth, and I suggest you give their article a read, and maybe even subscribe to continue helping their public service journalism.

The deal between SNC and the federal government was the first under the new "integrity regime." No other company has reached such a deal since.

The former Harper government created Canada's "integrity regime," in 2015 "to ensure the government does business solely with ethical partners."

The integrity regime allows businesses to continue operating while working to meet ethical demands. In the case of SNC-Lavalin, that involves working to fix the company's history of bribery, specifically $48 million paid to secure contracts in Libya.

<snip>

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/03/13/snc-lavalin-affair-ripe-for-opposition-to-capitalize-on-but-scheer-singh-poll-numbers-still-flat/192218

SNC-Lavalin affair ripe for opposition to capitalize on, say politicos, but Scheer, Singh poll numbers still flat

By Jolson Lim & Neil Moss  Mar. 13, 2019

While Justin Trudeau's poll numbers have sunk amid the controversy, Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh have not seen a boost to their own polling numbers as opposition leaders. But it's still early days, say strategists.

The SNC-Lavalin affair has hurt Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's approval numbers, but political commentators say it remains to be seen whether Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh can use the controversy to bump past the Liberal leader in the polls ahead of October's election.

Recent polling shows that Mr. Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) and his government's popularity have taken a dive since the SNC-Lavalin affair began on Feb. 7, when the Globe and Mail reported allegations that the prime minister's office pressed former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville, B.C.) to drop criminal charges against the company.

Amid the ongoing controversy, Mr. Scheer's and Mr. Singh's popularity have remained relatively stagnant, as suggested by Abacus Data's numbers based on more than 8,800 interviews conducted between Jan. 30 and March 4, and other polls.

<snip>

While polling indicates Mr. Trudeau’s numbers have taken a hit, Tim Powers, managing director of Abacus Data and a former Conservative adviser, cautioned that it takes time before all the impacts of a major controversy can be fully reflected in polling.

"At first people focus on the story at hand and then they begin to assess how people are performing. And often the assessment starts with the central character," said Mr. Powers, who is also vice-chairman of Summa Strategies. "In this case it's the prime minister."

Karl Bélanger, a former interim NDP national director, said the declining support for Mr. Trudeau is the key indicator right now because of how the Liberals have over relied on his leadership brand.

"The flip side of that is both the Conservatives and NDP are basically doing better than their own leaders," said Mr. Bélanger. "It shows that the voters aren't motivated by the personalities of their respective leaders, but more about the need for change."

<snip>

"The challenge for the opposition is to find new information and to keep the story alive, and to not get bored with it," Mr. Bélanger said. "And to keep the newsrooms interested in it as well."

<snip>


----------



## Remius (14 Mar 2019)

Interesting opinion piece by Neil MacDonald. 

Puts a perspective on things.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opposition-scheer-1.5055428


----------



## Jed (14 Mar 2019)

Remius, I would say that Neil M. Hit piece is not alternative perspective. It is a diversionary backslap to the Conservatives. Merely meant to earn some of the media funding previously provided.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Mar 2019)

It reminds me of a time when certain journalists were happy to play caricature opposition to Stephen Harper.


----------



## Remius (14 Mar 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Remius, I would say that Neil M. Hit piece is not alternative perspective. It is a diversionary backslap to the Conservatives. Merely meant to earn some of the media funding previously provided.



It is an opinion piece.  It also brings up valid points.  

Rather than use that line of bought media that seems to be making the rounds, I am willing to hear any refutation of those points.  The PM is a hypocrite, but so are those going after him.  One day JWR is a villain they wanted removed but now she's a hero.  Right.  Charlie Angus is NDP by the way. And he also points the finger at the liberals as well.  Did you actually go to the letHerspeak website?  I did and I rolled my eyes.  

I made this point about how many people including those on this site criticized Trudeau for putting someone like JWR and Jane Philpot in cabinet.  Now they want her to be PM. 

Andrew Scheer would rule his cabinet the same way Trudeau has and the same way Harper did.  With a tight grip.  

Neil MacDonald'd piece is about the reality of opposition and how like question period is a show.  He lists enough examples to prove his point.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Mar 2019)

What a great country this would be if our representatives actually voted their conscience and the will of their constituents, instead of mindlessly towing the party line. "Because I said so" may work for the parents of toddlers, but not as a basis of government.


----------



## Remius (14 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> What a great country this would be if our representatives actually voted their conscience and the will of their constituents, instead of mindlessly towing the party line. "Because I said so" may work for the parents of toddlers, but not as a basis of government.



Sucks yes but then we wouldn't get much done.  I would however like to see more MPs step down to become independents if it is the will of their constituents.  If their constituents truly want it they will support them.

Take Amanda Simard who quit caucus at the provincial level over Doug Ford's decisions regarding Franco Ontarians.  She followed her conscious.  Did not cross the floor to another party that would be counter to her core political beliefs and I would put money down that her constituents will re-elect her (she likely actually gained support from people that would have voted against her).  Those cases are few and far between though.


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> What a great country this would be if our representatives actually voted their conscience and the will of their constituents, instead of mindlessly towing the party line. "Because I said so" may work for the parents of toddlers, but not as a basis of government.


Double-edged sword, that.  Some/many wouldn't be happy if their rep voted their conscience when it may not be the will of the constituents.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Double-edged sword, that.  Some/many wouldn't be happy if their rep voted their conscience when it may not be the will of the constituents.



So the current "screw all of you, the boss wants this, so this is how it is" is preferable? Athens, Magna Carta, 1776 etc were just thought experiments, I guess.


----------



## Remius (14 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> So the current "screw all of you, the boss wants this, so this is how it is" is preferable? Athens, Magna Carta, 1776 etc were just thought experiments, I guess.



I would argue that people in those systems were also strong armed to tow the line as well on many occasions.  Some were also dealt with quite harshly for not doing so...

MPs can make there choices but they have to live with the consequences.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2019)

For all of you interested in alternative parliamentary universes may I suggest looking across the pond today to Westminster.

The PM can't control the House, her Parliamentary Party, her extra-parliamentary party, her cabinet, her attorney-general or her civil service.

But that's OK because none of the opposition party leaders are doing any better.

Chaos reigns.

Personally I am happy to see it.  Democracy in action.  (no sarcasm intended - I am truly pleased to see the UK demonstrating how to have a heated debate).


----------



## The Bread Guy (14 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> So the current "screw all of you, the boss wants this, so this is how it is" is preferable?


Not at all.  Just saying that some ideas sound good in theory, but may lead to other issues (or different dissatisfaction) if put into practice.

_*Always*_ worth discussing possibilities, because as someone smarter than me once said ...


> Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…


----------



## Loachman (14 Mar 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/how-jody-wilson-raybould-could-speak-her-truth-even-if-liberals-block-return-to-justice-committee?video_autoplay=true

How Jody Wilson-Raybould could speak her truth, even if Liberals block return to justice committee

Here are the principal ways she could still tell her side of the story

<snip>

A key issue for Wilson-Raybould is what she’s allowed to discuss publicly. She’s made it clear she does not want to discuss matters covered by cabinet confidence, the long-standing principle that discussions between cabinet ministers are secret, unless she gets an explicit waiver from the prime minister. She has also said she needs a waiver to discuss any legal advice she gave to Trudeau or cabinet.

Yet if Wilson-Raybould speaks in Parliament, she is covered by the sweeping power of parliamentary privilege — the constitutional right of Members of Parliament to freely discuss matters of public interest while performing their duties, and to be protected from civil or criminal liability in doing so. Most experts believe that parliamentary privilege trumps all other forms of privilege, including cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege.

"The whole point of parliamentary privilege is so you can say anything in Parliament that's vital to the national interest, and you shouldn’t have to be worried about the courts or the executive sanctioning you in some way," said Carleton University professor Philippe Lagassé, who specializes in the Westminster parliamentary system.

Wilson-Raybould could address the House of Commons in a variety of ways. In February, she used a point of order after a vote to tell the Commons what she needed in order to speak. "I understand fully that Canadians want to know the truth and want transparency," she said at the time. "Privilege and confidentiality are not mine to waive, and I hope that I have the opportunity to speak my truth."

She could find another way to make a point of order that allows her to discuss these issues, though points of order are supposed to be constrained to the topic of whether the procedures of the Commons are being properly followed.

An easier route for Wilson-Raybould could be to make a Member's Statement. Such statements are given before Question Period and can be on "virtually any matter of local, provincial, national or international concern," according to House of Commons guidelines. The main constraint is they are supposed to be capped at one minute. Speaker Geoff Regan would have the discretion to allow for a longer statement, however.

<snip>


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Double-edged sword, that.  Some/many wouldn't be happy if their rep voted their conscience when it may not be the will of the constituents.




Pretty much the last word was said on that almost 250 years ago, by Edmund Burke. I don't think anyone has added anything which has aded any real value to the issue since then.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Double-edged sword, that.  Some/many wouldn't be happy if their rep voted their conscience when it may not be the will of the constituents.



At the very least then, and I will defer to the eminent Messrs. Campbell and Burke, Those representatives should have to stand up and explain themselves after the fact. Far too many mindless drones in harness, and as we all know, if you ain't the lead dog, the view never changes.


----------



## Kirkhill (14 Mar 2019)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Pretty much the last word was said on that almost 250 years ago, by Edmund Burke. I don't think anyone has added anything which has aded any real value to the issue since then.



Right up until the point where the representative asks the constituents what they want to do and then stands for election on the promise of implementing their wishes.  Rather poor judgement to renege on the promise.


----------



## Loachman (14 Mar 2019)

https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/03/11/political-grandmaster-frank-iacobucci-is-at-the-center-of-snc-lavalin-kinder-morgan-scandals/

'Political grandmaster' Frank Iacobucci is at the center of SNC Lavalin, Kinder Morgan scandals

March 11, 2019

Frank Iacobucci is one of the most influential lawyer-lobbyists in all of Canada.  He has been at the crux of the nation's political, legal, and business communities well before he retired his post as a Supreme Court Justice in 2004. Today he is a partner at Torys, Bay Street's whitest-shoe law firm, and is the most statured attorney in the firm's indigenous law practice. 

Suddenly, this week, nearly everyone in Ottawa wants him to testify before the House of Commons' justice committee regarding his involvement in the SNC Lavalin scandal, following widespread rumors that it was Iacobucci who first insisted that Jody Wilson Raybould be removed as Attorney General. 

Iacobucci led SNC-Lavalin's efforts to secure a 'Deferred Prosecution Agreement' last summer and into the fall.  He was instrumental in persuading Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to insert the new legal provision as a policy rider into last year's budget bill, acting as SNC Lavalin's in-house attorney.

Last August, Iacobucci 'demanded' a Deferred Prosecution Agreement for SNC Lavalin, even dictating to Finance Minister Bill Morneau the terms that his client 'would accept' from the Trudeau government.  Sources close to Morneau say that's a familiar posture for Iacobucci, who months earlier helped colleagues at Torys 'bully' Morneau into acquiring Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain Pipeline in May - on terms that CEO Steve Kean would accept. 

When Wilson-Raybould refused to offer his client the legal mechanism that he lobbied to invent, he was livid.  Iacobucci regularly communicates with Morneau and the former Treasury Board President Scott Brison.  He was not shy about articulating his displeasure with the Attorney General to either man.

The Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, even complained to Wilson-Raybould that, 'Iacobucci is not a shrinking violet', to impress upon her the political pressures being exerted on Trudeau. Among Toronto-area political operatives, it's been rumored that Iacobucci may be one of three men in possession of 'embarrassing information' on Trudeau.

In October Trudeau asked Iacobucci to lead the government's negotiations with indigenous communities in British Columbia, where consent is required to accommodate the pipeline.  The government is not merely required to 'consult', because British Columbia's indigenous people have never ceded their lands to Canada by Treaty or transaction. 

A source close to the talks suspects that Trudeau had tasked Iacobucci with 'essentially bribing' every indigenous community along the pipeline's route, in order to secure approvals as quickly as possible.  The characterization of bribery, the source says, is based on Iacobucci's posture of engagement with indigenous communities - not allowing for meaningful negotiations, and insisting that the federal government's duty is satisfied by merely transferring funds to the affected communities, regardless of the outcome of discussions.

Iacobucci, who was already angry that Wilson-Raybould was refusing to allow his client to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement, feared that his consultations in British Columbia could be construed as improper. He would only agree to take the role on the condition that Trudeau would replace her with a 'more doting' Member of Parliament. 

Executives at SNC Lavalin have long expected that they will be awarded the construction contract on the multi-billion dollar infrastructure project, and the firm has been advocating aggressively for it in Ottawa.  The firm has also been engaging with key influencers in British Columbia.

<snip>

Indigenous leaders have been calling on Iacobucci to resign his role with the Trans Mountain Pipeline and to 'fully disclose' his list of clients and political activities. 

The Chronicle was unable to find Iacobucci's registration in LobbyCanada. 

SNC Lavalin has disclosed the following 'in house' contacts made with Trudeau officials since September 2016 (Iacobucci was working as an 'in house' attorney).  In addition, the firm has hired third-party consultants to lobby the government simultaneously.

<snip - lengthy list of contacts>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-quebec-caq-1.5056385

SNC-Lavalin approached Quebec's justice minister about DPA as part of wider effort to lobby government
Social Sharing

Part of company's effort to get new CAQ government to help it avoid prosecution

Simon Nakonechny, Jonathan Montpetit CBC News Posted: Mar 14, 2019 1:41 PM ET

SNC-Lavalin approached Quebec's attorney-general last fall to enlist her help securing a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) from the federal government.

This was part of a broader effort by the company to get the newly elected Coalition Avenir Québec government to take up its cause with Ottawa.

The senior executive in charge of SNC-Lavalin's lobbying strategy, Erik Ryan, had a phone conversation on Nov. 9 with Justice Minister Sonia LeBel's chief of staff, Marc-André Ross.

During that conversation, Ryan said he wanted to meet with LeBel to discuss a DPA, which would allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid prosecution on federal fraud and bribery charges.

The account of the conversation was provided to CBC News by Lebel's office.

"We find it important to be transparent and to communicate this [information]," said spokesperson Nicky Cayer.

LeBel's office did not follow up on SNC-Lavalin's request for help and has not had further contact with the company, Cayer said.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5030733/saadi-gaddafis-toronto-condo/

March 14, 2019 6:45 am

The Gaddafi condo: Redecorated at SNC-Lavalin's expense, luxury Toronto suite sits unused amid UN inaction

By Stewart Bell

The Gaddafis lost Libya in 2011, when rebel fighters captured and killed longtime dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi. But the family still holds a small patch of territory in Canada's largest city.

<snip>


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Mar 2019)

Ref: Iacabucci.

W.T.F!

If the Chronicle has this correct, a former Supreme Court Judge is, essentially, blackmailing the current PM.

What kind of nothern Banana republic has Canada become?


----------



## Jed (14 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Ref: Iacabucci.
> 
> W.T.F!
> 
> ...



Wow! Sounds like Kabuki theatre.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Mar 2019)

Certainly puts the whole " hey Jodi, let's get a second opinion from a retired supreme court judge" line into serious question. The whole frigging shit house is about to come down.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Mar 2019)

Given the discussions about buying judicial opinions and placing op-eds I think this part of the Buffalo Chronicle article bears repeating:



> Iacobucci is a trusted confidant of Canada’s ruling Liberal Party establishment and has received high-profile appointments by federal and provincial Liberal governments.
> 
> Iacobucci sits on the Board of Directors of Torstar, the company that publishes The Toronto Star, The Hamilton Spectator, GTA Today, The Niagara Review, iPolitics, and a series of smaller newspapers.  He formerly served as Chairman.  The Toronto Star, in particular, has earned a reputation for left-leaning opinion pages and reliably favorable coverage of Liberal politicians.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Mar 2019)

Deleted by self for possible contravention of site guidelines.


----------



## MilEME09 (15 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> For more of the same read the article on the AOPS in the National Post.



Privicy violations and Irving threatening legal action for a story not even written yet. Corruption in a nut shell here, this whole thing need a a public inquiry and a temporary ban on the liberal party from running in am election for 4 years.


----------



## FJAG (15 Mar 2019)

Just a little digression on Iacabucci.

Before becoming a Supreme Court Justice, Iacabucci was one of the most highly respected and talented corporate lawyers in Canada and as Dean of the law school at UofT and was a Deputy Minister of Justice for several years. I have no idea what his political leanings are but he was nominated for the SCC by Brian Mulroney a conservative in the days when political affiliation mattered.

After his retirement he took on the role as counsel to the Torys law firm and has been retained by numerous agencies to act on their behalf including several non-Liberal governments.

He's tough, bright, highly experienced and ethical. 

In the legal community, conflicts of interest matter; a lot. I personally wouldn't be prepared to throw any aspersions on him based on a flimsy puff piece like that of the Buffalo Chronicle which is a little long on rumour and a little short on sources.

 :2c:


----------



## Petard (15 Mar 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Just a little digression on Iacabucci.
> 
> He's tough, bright, highly experienced and ethical.
> 
> ...



To think he wouldn't of been trying to influence things for his client, SNC, would be naive.

So far, a number of other well informed legal experts have weighed in, and none support the idea SNC should have been offered a DPA based on economic outcomes. Yet considering economic outcomes was exactly what the Clerk of the Privy council was getting at, and supposedly was why he mentioned Iacabucci not being any shrinking violet to emphasize the point.  The government continues to cling to that idea.  The implication was Iacabucci's legal opinion, biased as it would be for his client, should outweigh that of the AG and the PPSC.


----------



## TCM621 (15 Mar 2019)

Petard said:
			
		

> To think he wouldn't of been trying to influence things for his client, SNC, would be naive.
> 
> So far, a number of other well informed legal experts have weighed in, and none support the idea SNC should have been offered a DPA based on economic outcomes. Yet considering economic outcomes was exactly what the Clerk of the Privy council was getting at, and supposedly was why he mentioned Iacabucci not being any shrinking violet to emphasize the point.  The government continues to cling to that idea.  The implication was Iacabucci's legal opinion, biased as it would be for his client, should outweigh that of the AG and the PPSC.



Lobbying for this client is kind of his job. As long as he didn't break any rules, it is incumbent on the government not to be a bunch of pansy's who bow down to a high powered lawyer.

The blackmailing rumour is frightening though.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Mar 2019)

Pffft. Making threats is part of litigation. They just can’t be idle or unlawful threats. Iacabucci wouldn’t blackmail anyone directly or indirectly. He’s required to be a strong and courageous advocate for his client, and he’s got a real winner for a client. It’s why he’s trying to make a deal, he probably forsee’s a conviction and his client wants an alternative.  

I do agree that the firepower demonstration of political influence is disturbing.


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Mar 2019)

Loachman:

I don't know if you picked up on this one -



> *The chair of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development's Working Group on Bribery* said today Jody-Wilson Raybould's testimony on SNC-Lavalin compelled the group to speak out on allegations of political interference in the criminal case against the Quebec engineering firm.
> 
> "*Allegations which were expressed there immediately raised all alarms sounding in the working group on bribery and that's why we started the debate," said Drago Kos* in an interview with CBC News Network's Power & Politics on Wednesday.





> Trudeau has acknowleged, however, that he asked her to "revisit" her decision to not negotiate a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin that would have allowed it to avoid a trial, saying he was concerned about the loss of 9,000 jobs that might follow the company going under.
> 
> Pointing to article 5 in OECD's Anti-Bribery Convention, Kos said national economic interest is not something the prosecution should consider when deciding whether to proceed to trial.
> 
> ...



https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/powerandpolitics/wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-trudeau-oecd-kos-1.5055261

It isn't just a local matter or an election matter.  It is a matter of national reputation and won't disappear quickly.  Now..... about that seat on the Security Council.....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Just a little digression on Iacabucci.
> 
> Before becoming a Supreme Court Justice, Iacabucci was one of the most highly respected and talented corporate lawyers in Canada and as Dean of the law school at UofT and was a Deputy Minister of Justice for several years. I have no idea what his political leanings are but he was nominated for the SCC by Brian Mulroney a conservative in the days when political affiliation mattered.
> 
> ...



Political leaning and affiliations among certain of our politicians is somewhat of a dubious matter, especially if they have a higher calling. Brian Mulroney, in my mind, was never a conservative. Up until the last few years, he was considered by many as the worst PM we've ever had. I don't see the fact that he was in the Conservative party, has any weight in the argument. Mulroney was considered by many to be the right hand man of Paul Desmarais, his mentor, the owner of Power Corp. Do you leave a spot like that to enter the uncertain world of politics? Not without lots and lots of backing.

The chart is almost 15 years old, I'll grant. Many here will decide it's fake news because it's originally from Levant and the Western Standard. It doesn't change history though. You'll find the same connections, if you delve deep enough into the individuals listed.

What it does show, is the way many politicians are intertwined with, probably, Canada's biggest corporation. Party affiliations be damned. There are leaders from every party, either fed or prov, working at PC. Before and after their political careers. A corporation that can influence employment, fuels, food, finances, media, insurance and other aspects of our everyday lives. A company that makes Prime Ministers. If you don't think their influence is that great, read about the oil for food scandal in the Middle East. It is the very small tip of the iceberg.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Mar 2019)

"Will no one rid us of this turbulent AG?"

It's not difficult to apply pressure in the powerful circles in which people know how to listen between the lines.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Mar 2019)

Prepping for bigger/better things, perhaps?  This from JWR's page (PDF also attached in case link doesn't work for you)...


> March 14, 2019
> 
> Dear Constituents of Vancouver Granville,
> 
> ...


Feel free to read the tea leaves there ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Mar 2019)

The events in NZ are a blessing for JT, they will double down on C-71 and use it to empower Blairs recommendations for further restrictions.


----------



## 211RadOp (15 Mar 2019)

> Liberal MP who led committee shutdown denies coverup, says it's time for 'shift' in SNC-Lavalin debate
> 
> Francis Drouin says he sees no reason to recall Jody Wilson-Raybould to committee
> 
> ...



More at link

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/drouin-liberal-snc-justice-committee-1.5056070


----------



## Kirkhill (15 Mar 2019)

I'm not inclined to "shift focus" yet but Conrad Black has an interesting take on JWR.



> Conrad Black: SNC-Lavalin is a sideshow to the real Wilson-Raybould issue
> Throughout her tenure as justice minister, she tied the government’s hands in responding to suits from Aboriginal organizations



https://nationalpost.com/opinion/conrad-black-snc-lavalin-is-a-sideshow-to-the-real-wilson-raybould-issue?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2BdMM2bjXcFl85j4oDHALMeelvAedRZ7DchhNAfvQa6ALGlVv_Cu_qLCY#Echobox=1552679080

Funny thing about people.  They don't have to be wrong all the time.  Occasionally they can be right as well.

And sometimes they do the right things for the wrong reasons.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (15 Mar 2019)

I'm thinking this probably fits best here.
https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/03/15/facing-possibility-of-rcmp-probe-trudeau-his-staff-are-hiring-lawyers/?fbclid=IwAR0kwdfsFPU17ccRqLX4kKptoxeXOrBWgslIaBc8mRsUTGwDi9FhAlH1L3M



> Facing Possibility Of RCMP Probe, Trudeau & His Staff Are Hiring Lawyers
> SpencerFernando
> March 15, 20190
> Trudeau Scandal Response
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Mar 2019)

Admiral Norman, who is probably Innocent,was refused legal aid at government expense.


----------



## brihard (16 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Admiral Norman, who is probably Innocent,was refused legal aid at government expense.



Given the nature of the alleged offense, not a chance he would be indemnified at crown expense.

I’ve received legal coverage under the same policy. It’s intended to cover employees/agents of the crown who in the good faith exercise of their duties and up on the wrong side of legal action, which happens quite a bit. 

This is governed by the Treasury Board Secrerariat policy on Legal Assistance and Indemnification.

“6.1.5 Three basic eligibility criteria: In considering Crown servants for legal assistance or indemnification, determining whether the Crown servant:

- acted in good faith;
- did not act against the interests of the Crown; and
- acted within the scope of their duties or course of employment with respect to the acts or omissions giving rise to the request.”

So, without opining on the merits or lack thereof in this particular prosecution, *if* the nature of an alleged offense is such that it falls outside the scope of duties or was not in good faith or was against the interests of the crown, legal assistance won’t be provided.

I’m adding this only for the sake of clarity on that point, since I’ve had the dubious fortune of experiencing it firsthand.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Mar 2019)

It seems to me that much of that can only be tested at trial.

I can understand the accused having to reimburse costs if found guilty.  I have difficulty with bureaucrats deciding the merits of a case in advance of a case being tried.


----------



## Haggis (16 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I have difficulty with bureaucrats deciding the merits of a case in advance of a case being tried.



Why not?  The PM did exactly that.  Leadership by example.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2019)

No different than when the Crown comes after legal gun owners. The Crown expects a foregone conclusion that all guns will be seized and the legal owner ruined for life. Occasionally, they get suprised.


----------



## FJAG (16 Mar 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Given the nature of the alleged offense, not a chance he would be indemnified at crown expense.
> 
> I’ve received legal coverage under the same policy. It’s intended to cover employees/agents of the crown who in the good faith exercise of their duties and up on the wrong side of legal action, which happens quite a bit.
> 
> ...



I've had some experience with that as well albeit as counsel for an individual who was given a s.13 notice under the Inquiries Act during the Somalia Inquiry. ss 12-13 read as follows:



> Parties may employ counsel
> 
> 12 The commissioners may allow any person whose conduct is being investigated under this Act, and shall allow any person against whom any charge is made in the course of an investigation, to be represented by counsel.
> 
> ...



In effect a s. 13 notice for the Somalia Inquiry indicated to the witnesses that there is a likelihood that they will be found to have been involved on some misconduct that would reflect badly against them in the report and which might lead to some charges (although several of those given notices had already been tried by court martial). 

Because there were so many of them it was not possible to furnish crown counsel (as well the crown was counsel for the inquiry) and therefore they were all directed to get outside private counsel which were paid for out of the public purse.

While there is a substantive difference to being charged in a civilian court and being a witness under the Inquiry Act, the basic character of the matter is the same: there is some form of alleged misconduct involved performed during the course of employment and a consequence serious enough that the member requires the aid of legal counsel.

I have trouble distinguishing the good faith element when comparing "negligent performance of duty" or "torture" or "unlawfully causing bodily harm" or even "murder" (as were the misconduct in the Somalia Inquiry) with "revealing cabinet confidences". If anything, IMHO, the allegations against Norman are much more likely to be defensible on the grounds of good faith than some of the Somalia ones.

To me the decision not to provide Norman with financial support seems arbitrary and mean spirited (and regrettably, consistent with how the Government seems often to be working these days.).

 :cheers:


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Mar 2019)

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190316

*Sorry Liberals – the ‘ jobs’ excuse won’t fly* - National Post - 16 Mar 2019 - Rex Murphy

Whoever is masterminding the Liberal response to the SNC-Lavalin scandal is confusing the anchor and the life-jacket. To be clear, the life-jacket is the one that keeps you afloat … the anchor is the heavy thing. The justice committee Liberals — who are obviously not mariners — met Wednesday only to shut the committee down for a week, to stall on allowing Jody Wilson-Raybould back to complete her testimony, giving every indication possible that they weren’t really very interested in hearing from her at all anymore.

There is nothing opposition MPs could have done more effectively to juice up an already highly-charged saga than the five Liberals’ blatant and televised amputation of what a committee named justice ought to be doing. Which is to hear from the central character in this story — free to speak fully and without the restraint of various privileges — the full account of why she left cabinet, and why another senior minister, Jane Philpott, felt conscience-bound to leave in solidarity with her.

The same committee has also killed opposition efforts to call Justin Trudeau’s chief of staff, Katie Telford, PMO advisers Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard, the former chief of staff to Ms. Wilson-Raybould, Jessica Prince, and notably the only figure who really has the whole story, the prime minister himself. There is something in the Liberals’ behaviour touchingly reminiscent of the classic line from Dr. Strangelove: “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here. This is the War Room.” Committee chairman Anthony Housefather: “Witnesses? You can’t call for witnesses here. This is the justice committee.”

That’s the tactic they’ve decided on. Close it down. Leave the full story untold. Use process to obscure truth. There’s a morbid irony in using control of the justice committee as the instrument to deny the function of the justice committee. If this were the Harper years they’d call it muzzling. The mores change with the tempores, I suppose. The first response to the charges of pressuring the attorney general on behalf of SNC-Lavalin was clear denial. Mr. Trudeau: “The allegations in the Globe story are false.”

They more or less dropped that one and moved on to a more slippery rationale. Yes, there was pressure, all those meetings, the PMO and Gerald Butts, the finance minister’s aide, the clerk of the Privy Council, JWR’s one-to-one with Mr. Trudeau, but it was good pressure, because, you know, SNC-Lavalin employed so many people, and they had to save 9,000 jobs. This was tacitly something of an admission, a conditional one. It said: If we did put the heat on, if we did — slightly — overstep our bounds, well, as Mr. Trudeau emphasized at least a hundred times, “we will always fight to protect Canadian jobs.” We’re the Trudeau government. Jobs are what we are. We protect Canadian jobs. We may have acted badly but our hearts were job pure.

This newfound emphasis on jobs was a strange sunrise, puzzling to very many, and a veritable revelation out in certain Western provinces. A social-justice warrior government, cast in the deepest shade of green, touting feminism, diversity, carbon taxes, equity for all, globalist in aspiration — was suddenly a Jobs First government. Now there was a costume change. You’re in the theatre, you’ve watched the first three acts of Hamlet, the curtain opens on Act 4, and it’s A Midsummer Night’s Dream. (Enter Puck, with his cover letter and resumé.)

Building pipelines involves jobs. The oilsands involve jobs — tens of thousands of jobs. Northern Gateway involved jobs. The Energy East pipeline involved jobs. Oil companies cancelling projects involved jobs. The flight of headquarters from Calgary involved jobs. The still-stalled Trans Mountain pipeline involves jobs. The most massive jobs hit in the Canadian economy, involving an entire industry, did not get 1/100 the prime attention that a single company, with a dubious reputation, already sanctioned outside Canada, and under investigation within, received. Who can seriously believe the “we value jobs line?”

Did they hound and set siege to the National Energy Board with the same ferocity and frequency the attorney general was subjected to for the benefit of SNC-Lavalin? Was the dark lord of the Privy Council on the phone to the head of the NEB reminding the board that there were massive jobs involved in all these impeded and cancelled projects? Seeking to slacken the regulations, speed up the process, get the approvals out pronto?
Were they strong-arming the B.C. premier to lower his opposition to Trans Mountain? Were they back-dooring the legal system to hold off on nuisance lawsuits from environmentalists because … so many valuable Canadian jobs were at stake? Were they fighting the octopus green lobby’s relentless campaign against Canadian energy, speaking out in international forums against its propaganda? The answer to all these questions and a hundred similar ones is No.

A single company, SNC-Lavalin, owned all the machinery and might of the PMO and the prime minister himself. In contrast, an entire national industry with employees across the full spread of the country, was left to languish. Or worse, be entangled in new regulations, staring down Bill C-69, burdened by new and useless socalled carbon taxes, and hearing the prime minister declare, somewhat in exasperation, “we can’t shut down the oilsands tomorrow.” I fear in the light of how employment in the energy sector has been valued that the “jobs are us” line is a bird that will not fly.

Note to Post readers: Two (or more) people may experience this column differently, but diversity is our strength.

THE OILSANDS INVOLVE JOBS — TENS OF THOUSANDS OF JOBS.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Mar 2019)

Like I say. Construction workers don't lose jobs. They move to the work and stay employed. The job losses should be contained to the suits. No biggie there.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Mar 2019)

> SNC-Lavalin is undeniably an important company in Canada. But its importance has been shrinking, at least in terms of employment. Since February, 2012, when SNC-Lavalin first disclosed it had discovered financial irregularities it couldn’t explain, namely undocumented payments later discovered to be bribes, the company’s payroll in Canada has declined by more than half, to roughly 8,500 people from 20,000. It currently employs about 2,500 people in Quebec, including 700 at its Montreal head office. Five times as many SNC-Lavalin employees work outside the country as in it.



International Employees = 6x 8,500 = 51,000
Canadian Employees = 8,500
Quebec Employees = 2,500
Montreal Employees (HQ) = 700

Actual Jobs at risk - IMHO - 700 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-justice-jobs-and-snc-lavalin-how-much-does-the-engineering-giant/


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> International Employees = 6x 8,500 = 51,000
> Canadian Employees = 8,500
> Quebec Employees = 2,500
> Montreal Employees (HQ) = 700
> ...


And if I were working for the company wanting to apply max QC pressure, I'd use the 2500+700 = 3200 figure for "here's how much it'll cost you in QC" card.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Mar 2019)

And just spotted this @ #NotYetBoughtMedia*** _Globe & Mail_


> *Trudeau, PMO staff hired outside lawyers in case RCMP probes SNC-Lavalin affair*
> March 15, 2019
> 
> Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and senior officials in his office have retained outside legal counsel in case of an RCMP investigation into allegations of political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group.
> ...


More @ link - if you want to swim thru the TB policy in question, be my guest 

*** - We'll (hopefully) find out more about who's bought by how much @ budget time later this month.


----------



## FJAG (16 Mar 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> And just spotted this @ #NotYetBoughtMedia*** _Globe & Mail_More @ link - if you want to swim thru the TB policy in question, be my guest
> 
> *** - We'll (hopefully) find out more about who's bought by how much @ budget time later this month.



Just skimmed through it but missed the part where it says they can deny financial support for lawyers for alleged misconduct against the Liberals a la Norman but have to grant it for alleged misconduct by Liberals.  :stirpot:

Maybe someone else found it.  op:

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Mar 2019)

The reason the "job losses" red herring is raised is because the company may be ineligible to bid on federal contracts for a long time.

The government is free to identify all the planned work that was going to be sole-source awarded to SNC.  For the rest, some other bidder will fill the gap.  As long as the planned work goes forward, no jobs are lost.  If SNC has less work, maybe it sheds people.  The successful bidders either have spare capacity on hand (in which case, their jobs would be "lost" if SNC won the contracts) or will need to hire...perhaps from the same pool of people shed by SNC.

The key to "jobs lost" isn't whether SNC is eligible to bid.  The key is whether work (private or public) goes ahead or not.  The "jobs lost" are the ones which would have been filled on cancelled and delayed projects. If an accusation is to be leveled, level it against people who block projects or don't do enough to ensure projects go ahead.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Mar 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Just skimmed through it but missed the part where it says they can deny financial support for lawyers for alleged misconduct against the Liberals a la Norman but have to grant it for alleged misconduct by Liberals.  :stirpot:
> 
> Maybe someone else found it.  op:
> 
> :cheers:


There IS a bit about recovering funds if wrongdoing is found, or retroactive payments -- all good stuff


----------



## Colin Parkinson (18 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> International Employees = 6x 8,500 = 51,000
> Canadian Employees = 8,500
> Quebec Employees = 2,500
> Montreal Employees (HQ) = 700
> ...



But those are most likley well paid Liberal supporters and donors, so it's "Double ungood"


----------



## Jarnhamar (18 Mar 2019)

Does this count towards the SNC job losses?




> Another of the key Canadian government officials at the center of a controversy over SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. is leaving his post.
> 
> Michael Wernick announced his retirement Monday as clerk of the privy council, the highest-ranking position in Canada’s civil service and a key aide to Justin Trudeau. The prime minister named Ian Shugart, currently deputy minister of foreign affairs, to replace him.
> 
> Wernick said in a letter to Trudeau that “recent events” led him to conclude he couldn’t hold his post during the election campaign this fall. “It is now apparent that there is no path for me to have a relationship of mutual trust and respect with the leaders of the opposition parties,” he said, citing the need for impartiality on the issue of potential foreign interference. The exact date of his departure is unclear.



https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/canada-s-top-bureaucrat-michael-wernick-to-retire-amid-snc-scandal-1.1230681



Trudeau is giving his loyal soldiers the Jason Bourne Treadstone treatment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Trudeau is giving his loyal soldiers the Jason Bourne Treadstone treatment.


Well, he WAS appointed, if you believe this account by #NotYetBoughtMedia from 2016, to _"come up with a better process to pick his own permanent replacement as the country’s top bureaucrat"._

Just took him a bit longer than planned to find a replacement, I guess ...


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Mar 2019)

I wouldn't say Canada is losing anything by having a hyper-partisan senior public servant step down.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Mar 2019)

For the record, the retirement letter (also attached in case link doesn't work) ...


> The Right Honourable Justin P.J. Trudeau
> Prime Minister of Canada
> Room 315-A, West Block
> House of Commons
> ...


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Mar 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> But those are most likley well paid Liberal supporters and donors, so it's "Double ungood"



Hmmm.  Max donation for anyone in Canada is $1600. irrepsective of province or party.  As to well-paid, here are some average salaries for Canadians.  Look at the Engineering ones - all less than a Capt or CWO in the CAF.  

https://neuvoo.ca/salary/

So if a Maj in the CAF makes a donation to the NDP, is he or she "a well paid NDP suppporter or donor?"  How about CPC supporter?


----------



## mariomike (18 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Look at the Engineering ones
> https://neuvoo.ca/salary/



They seem a bit low. ( The Engineer pay scale, that is. ) See also,

Job Classification Title ENGINEER 
https://www.brainhunter.com/frontoffice/seekerViewJobDetailAction.do?sitecode=pl389&jobId=2320933&page=search&external=


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (18 Mar 2019)

You are looking at the wrong statistics.

Those are the average salaries for engineers. In the private sector, the engineers that work for engineering firms (like SNC) are also partners and shareholders in the firm. Once you add the remuneration coming from those factors for the P. Eng. with more than ten years practice, and particularly in the higher echelons of the firm, the annual compensation packages will run them in the six figures and more likely above the 200,000/year range for quite a few of them. Even that leaves money in the actual firm's kettle to put into lobbying and politics.

And yes, sure, Canadian are limited to $1600 per person, but if the firm ensures that 100 employees donate that amount ( and are compensated in the background for it by the firm) "on order" and it is advertised quietly to the powers that be, for instance, then it's the power of $160,000 that this "firm" holds over the party it donated to in this fashion.


----------



## PuckChaser (18 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  Max donation for anyone in Canada is $1600. irrepsective of province or party.



So what you're saying is, once you're in the Laurier Club for the Liberal Party of Canada, you can attend fundraising events for free for the rest of the year? Or does the fact that the Laurier Club gives you access to events closed to normal donors at $200+ a ticket just mean those people are "middle class" individuals who can fork out at least $1800 of net income on political party events 

https://secure.liberal.ca/laurierclub/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/donation-stats-indicate-liberal-fundraisers-are-exclusive-events/article32588273/
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/trudeau-fundraiser-touted-as-a-networking-opportunity/article33233874/
https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/9b8jba/the-trudeau-government-scheduled-more-than-100-cash-for-access-events-in-2016-alone

That being said, most political parties do big ticket fundraisers. The difference is, the Liberals campaigned on being "transparent" and "working for the middle class" https://www.liberal.ca/openness-and-transparency/. Not just a little bit of hypocrisy, a huge amount of it.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (18 Mar 2019)

So this is okay (tonight by the way) if you don't say you have a policy of transparency?

https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/an-evening-with-conservative-party-candidate-michael-ma-tickets-55785572148?from=singlemessage&isappinstalled=0#


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hmmm.  Max donation for anyone in Canada is $1600. irrepsective of province or party.  As to well-paid, here are some average salaries for Canadians.  Look at the Engineering ones - all less than a Capt or CWO in the CAF.
> 
> https://neuvoo.ca/salary/
> 
> So if a Maj in the CAF makes a donation to the NDP, is he or she "a well paid NDP suppporter or donor?"  How about CPC supporter?



Those are working level engineering type jobs (equivalent to new-newish Captains).  Once you hit senior Captain, Maj and above, job titles change to 'Senior Engineer', Engineering Manager, Director etc. They also branch out into Project Manager, Program Manager, VPs, etc. Have met a few company presidents that are engineers, as well as other senior executives, presidents and CEOs, so the job title is a bit misleading once they hit the management side and get out of pure engineering.

Still, not many people will complain about those kind of salaries, so not uncommon for people to stick in the design trenches and do what they love (especially if they don't need to deal with people; they have other people for that!    ).


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Mar 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And yes, sure, Canadian are limited to $1600 per person, but if the firm ensures that 100 employees donate that amount ( and are compensated in the background for it by the firm) "on order" and it is advertised quietly to the powers that be, for instance, then it's the power of $160,000 that this "firm" holds over the party it donated to in this fashion.



I can't seem to find any past incidences of this having happened?  Am I slow tonight?


----------



## Infanteer (19 Mar 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Not just a little bit of hypocrisy, a huge amount of it.



I'm not sure how having fundraising dinners goes against transparency and openness?  I attended one for the Kiwanis Club once - does that make them non-transparent and closed?


----------



## Infanteer (19 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I can't seem to find any past incidences of this having happened?  Am I slow tonight?



I seem to remember this beauty, which did one better by funding the Party with taxpayer dollars rather than corporate dollars!


----------



## Navy_Pete (19 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I can't seem to find any past incidences of this having happened?  Am I slow tonight?



Former SNC-Lavalin exec charged with illegal federal political contributions

https://globalnews.ca/news/4215730/former-snc-lavalin-exec-charged-with-illegal-federal-political-contributions/

Key figure in illegal election financing scheme quietly pleads guilty
Social Sharing
Normand Morin's plea means Canadians may never know which Liberals, Conservatives received SNC Lavalin money

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/election-financing-snclavalin-charbonneau-1.4984823

Basically SNC employees or spouses donated the money and were reimbursed by the company. Went to both Liberal campaigns, leader hopefuls, and some Conservatives, as well as PQ.

Really convenient how only one person was charged, a bunch of others got immunity, and others were never charged.  He got off with a $2000 fine, so probably cheaper than paying a lawyer, but also killed any disclosure. Makes sense for the prosecutors to take the plea, but there were enough people involved that a single scapegoat is suspicious, and the whole thing was conveniently buried around the same time as the JWR situation was coming up.

Feel like I need a tin hat, except that these guys are just awful at trying to cover it up.  The justice committee is apparently deciding to down tools and let the ethics czar investigate, knowing full well it will never get done before the election.  I don't think Canadian voters will really care though, and most will forget about it, or decide there is no real alternative anyway.  Scheer doesn't really capture the hearts and minds of anyone outside of Conservative faithful, and they keep trotting out Polliviere as a talking head, which is really just messaging to their own echo chamber.

Would be nice to have an option where they would actually work with other parties and compromise as required for getting things done, but they are probably less electable.  Think my personal red line is going to be actualsupport for proportional representation, so likely going with the Green party.


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Mar 2019)

Well, that's the end of that open and transparent investigation.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5071191/opposition-mps-leave-justice-committee-meeting-snc-lavalin/

*Opposition MPs briefly storm out of committee meeting as Liberals end SNC-Lavalin investigation* - 19 Mar 19

Opposition MPs briefly stormed out of the Justice Committee meeting Tuesday morning, after reporters were given a document outlining a Liberal motion to discuss hate crimes the morning after publicly calling for an end to the SNC-Lavalin investigation. On Monday night, the five Liberal MPs in the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights sent a letter to the chair of the committee saying they believe the “all rules and laws were followed” by government staff in relation to SNC-Lavalin, and that “Canadians now have the necessary information to arrive at a conclusion.”

During the meeting Tuesday morning, the Liberal-majority committee voted to end the probe into the affair. Ahead of the planned Justice Committee meeting, Liberal staffers handed out a motion to media to discuss hate crimes and study how racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and homophobia spreads through online platforms. Global News’ Mercedes Stephenson reported on the motion on Twitter — which was the first opposition MPs had heard of the motion, Tory MP Lisa Raitt told Global News.(see photo MS)

They said the Liberals violated the Committee in camera rules by providing that motion to media before it was tabled and walked out of the meeting. After briefly speaking to media, the opposition MPs rushed back into the meeting, which is in camera and thus not open to the media. Opposition MPs had been asking for the meeting to be open to the public, and for the probe to continue, saying Canadians have the right to hear more about the SNC-Lavalin controversy.

Raitt said on Twitter that even after the investigation, “we don’t know why” MPs Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott resigned from the Liberal cabinet, or why Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick and the Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Gerald Butts resigned from their positions after the scandal broke. NDP MP Murray Rankin said Raybould-Wilson had more to say and would ask the committee to “do the right thing.” (see photo MR)


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> I can't seem to find any past incidences of this having happened?  Am I slow tonight?



Further to Navy Pete's last:



> SNC-Lavalin violated Elections Act with contributions to Liberals ($108,000), Tories ($8000)
> Bruce Cheadle, The Canadian Press
> Published Thursday, September 8, 2016 9:51AM EDT
> Last Updated Thursday, September 8, 2016 5:09PM EDT





> According to the agreement entered into by SNC-Lavalin, former *senior executives approached employees to make political contributions* and, *in some cases, those employees were reimbursed with refunds* for false personal expenses, fictitious bonuses or other benefits.
> 
> The *improperly donated sums included: $83,534.51 to the Liberal Party of Canada; $13,552.13 to various Liberal riding associations; $12,529.12 to four contestants in the 2006 Liberal leadership race, including $5,000 each to Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae; *$3,137.73 to the Conservative Party of Canada; and $5,050 to various Conservative riding associations.



https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/snc-lavalin-violated-elections-act-with-contributions-to-liberals-tories-1.3063412


----------



## PPCLI Guy (19 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Further to Navy Pete's last:
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/snc-lavalin-violated-elections-act-with-contributions-to-liberals-tories-1.3063412



Thank you to you, Navy Pete, and Infanteer for enlightening me.  Much appreciated.  Now I need to take a shower.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Mar 2019)

Speaking of jobs, from 2017 https://context.capp.ca/infographics/2018/infographic_533000-jobs


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Well, that's the end of that open and transparent investigation.



I hope Canadians have had enough of this bullshit.


----------



## FJAG (20 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hope Canadians have had enough of this bullshit.



The investigation? or the "open and transparent" Liberal government?

 ;D


----------



## cavalryman (20 Mar 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The investigation? or the "open and transparent" Liberal government?
> 
> ;D


Does it matter?   Canadians have their priorities.  The Stanley Cup playoffs are coming and Montreal has a chance at one of the two Eastern Conference wildcard slots.  What's the SNC scandal by comparison /s
 ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 Mar 2019)

She stated she was not running in Oct, then quits the LPC now, a day after the Budget?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-mp-caesar-chavannes-caucus-1.5064544

*MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes quits Liberal caucus* - 20 Mar 19
     _ Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announces Ontario MP's departure after weekly caucus meeting_

Extract; Whitby, Ont. MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes has quit the Liberal caucus and will sit as an independent, prompting Conservative attacks calling Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a "fake feminist."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hope Canadians have had enough of this bullshit.



 :rofl:

Sorry Jan, not laughing at you. Canadians are so apathetic towards our governments they don't care.
Typically, if they aren't talking about it, they don't think about it and even some don't even know about it.
These small islands of outrage that we (you, me, the other people really upset) belong to are just that. Small low population islands.
trudeau could declare himself King and people will still yawn, stop at Timmie's and go to work, plodding through their day to slump in their chair with a beer on return home. Rinse and repeat.


----------



## FJAG (21 Mar 2019)

> SNC-Lavalin could suffer takeover, lose 9,000 jobs overseas, says CEO
> 
> Peter Zimonjic · CBC News
> 
> ...



See rest of article here: https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/neil-bruce-snc-lavalin-radio-canada-1.5065042

In the words of just about everyone: "If you can't do the time, don't do the crime."

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Mar 2019)

>and its 9,000 jobs in Canada could move abroad

Fine.  The federal contracts and - I suppose - most of the workers who fill those jobs would remain in Canada.  So the workers would continue to have work in Canada, but working for other companies.   SNC can go build German infrastructure with German workers in Germany.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Mar 2019)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jody-wilson-raybould-plans-to-provide-further-evidence-to-house/?utm_medium=Newsletter&utm_source=Evening%20Update&utm_type=text&utm_content=EveningUpdate&utm_campaign=2019-3-22_17&cu_id=2AhifIPYOSVxCwZPBuV%2FvXk0f20rcOyV
*
Wilson-Raybould will table more evidence of political meddling in SNC-Lavalin affair* - ROBERT FIFE - 22 Mar 19

Former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould says she plans to provide further evidence to a parliamentary committee about high-level political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. The move comes after the Liberal majority on the House of Commons justice committee closed down an inquiry into the SNC-Lavalin affair on Tuesday, preventing Ms. Wilson-Raybould from testifying again in response to other witnesses. Opposition MPs protested the shutdown of the hearings by forcing 31 hours of marathon voting on spending estimates that ended early Friday morning. They vow to keep the spotlight on the controversy until Ms. Wilson-Raybould is able to testify again.

On Friday, Ms. Wilson-Raybould wrote to the chair of the justice committee, Montreal Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, saying she has "relevant facts and evidence” that back up her previous testimony about attempts by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and top aides to help SNC-Lavalin avoid a criminal trial on fraud and bribery charges relating to its business dealings in Libya. In testimony last month, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said she faced "consistent and sustained” pressure to override federal prosecutors and negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement with SNC-Lavalin. Such an agreement would allow the company to accept responsibility for wrongdoing and pay a fine without having to go to trial.

In her letter, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said she intends to submit evidence that had been asked of her by justice committee members when she testified on Feb. 27 and to respond to witnesses who appeared after her. Her evidence will be made public, Mr. Housefather told members of the committee on Friday. Mr. Trudeau’s former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, and Michael Wernick, the clerk of the privy council, testified on March 6 that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was not subjected to “inappropriate pressure” and said she had mischaracterized some of the conversations.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould indicated she has documented evidence that will support her version of what transpired between September and December, 2018, when she was attorney-general and justice minister. “A request was made for ‘copies of text messages and e-mails’ that I referred to in my testimony on Feb. 27, 2019 … I will provide copies,” she wrote. “Related to these requests, *I also have relevant facts and evidence in my possession that further clarify statements I made and elucidate the accuracy and nature of statements by witnesses in testimony that came after my committee appearance.”*

However, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said she is still prevented from talking about the period of time from when she was shuffled out of justice in early January to her resignation from cabinet in mid-February. The B.C. Liberal MP has asked the Prime Minister to give her another waiver from solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidentiality to talk about conversations with Mr. Trudeau that led to her resignation from cabinet.

But Mr. Trudeau told reporters in Thunder Bay on Friday that Ms. Wilson-Raybould has already had an opportunity to tell her story during four hours of testimony before the justice committee last month. Her testimony, however, covered only her time as attorney-general and not the period after she was shuffled to veterans affairs. She believes the demotion was related to the SNC-Lavalin prosecution.

“There has been an airing of that for five weeks in front of the justice committee and the ethics commissioner continues to proceed with his investigation on this,” Mr. Trudeau said, in dismissing requests to waive cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege for that period. “There has been a full airing of involving the former justice minister and attorney general and the SNC-Lavalin file.”

Opposition MPs accused Mr. Trudeau of a cover-up to prevent Canadians from knowing about what led Ms. Wilson-Raybould and former Treasury Board President Jane Philpott to resign from cabinet. “It’s clear from her letter that she still feels limited in what she can release and what she can speak about,” Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen told reporters. “Every single day there is more and more proof that the Prime Minister is doing everything he can to continue the cover-up and not allow her to speak.”

On Thursday, Ms. Philpott complained about “an attempt to shut down the story” and said “there is still a substantial amount of her [Wilson-Raybould] story that’s not out there.” “If nothing wrong took place, then why don’t we waive privilege on the whole issue and let those who have something to say on it speak their minds and share their stories,” she told Maclean’s magazine.

The issue has dominated Parliament since The Globe and Mail reported on Feb. 7 that the Prime Minister’s Office pressured the former attorney-general to negotiate an settlement without trial for SNC-Lavalin. In the fallout from The Globe report, Ms. Wilson-Raybould, Ms. Philpott and Mr. Butts stepped down. On Monday, Mr. Wernick retired because he had lost the “trust and respect" of the opposition parties over his role in the SNC-Lavalin case.

Liberal MPs are also expected to use their majority on the House ethics committee on Tuesday to block an attempt by Conservative and NDP members to mount an inquiry and have Ms. Wilson-Raybould testify again.

One option open to Ms. Wilson-Raybould is to raise a question of personal privilege to ask the Commons Speaker to allow her to speak freely about what happened after she was demoted to Veterans Affairs and her resignation from cabinet. The move would give her immunity to speak without facing consequences of violating cabinet confidentiality and solicitor-client privilege. However, the Speaker could limit the time to 20 minutes.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Mar 2019)

This is just getting worse and worse for trudeau.
Kinda breaks my heart :


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> This is just getting worse and worse for trudeau.
> Kinda breaks my heart :



Ironically hoist with his own petard... 

"Pétard comes from the Middle French péter, to break wind, from the root pet, expulsion of intestinal gas, derived from the Latin peditus, past participle of pedere, to break wind. In modern French, a pétard is a firecracker (and it is the basis for the word for firecracker in several other European languages)."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Mar 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> "If you can't do the time afford the cost of doing business, don't do the crime."


Cynically fixed that for you ...


			
				Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> This is just getting worse and worse for trudeau.
> Kinda breaks my heart :


You're taking it well, though 


			
				daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Ironically hoist with his own petard...


An Italian version of that is a saying something like, "the spinach'll cook in its own grease"  :nod:


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Mar 2019)

Well this doesn't make sense.



> Prime Minister Justin *Trudeau continues to affirm that he was trying to protect Canadian jobs *when he and his staff spoke with former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould about a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA) with SNC-Lavalin.
> 
> Trudeau said this in the same week that* the engineering firm's CEO has insisted he never brought up potential job losses with the prime minister.*
> 
> ...



https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-insists-he-was-trying-to-protect-snc-lavalin-jobs-%E2%80%94-even-as-its-ceo-says-he-didnt-raise-them/ar-BBV7IwS


Do you think maybe Mr Bruce just has a different recollection of the conversation?   :


----------



## Haggis (23 Mar 2019)

So, who are you going to believe, *Jarnhamar*?  Our open and transparent PM who has spoken frequently. eloquently and convincingly about the fulsome testimony he has allowed JWR to give?  He has the full confidence of his ministers and was only trying to do what is right for Canada.

Or would you believe the CEO of a faceless multinational corporation involved in shady business deals with despots and tyrants and who's officers have already been convicted of criminal offences and who is, itself, facing criminal charges? 

I know who I'd pick.


----------



## FSTO (23 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So, who are you going to believe, *Jarnhamar*?  Our open and transparent PM who has spoken frequently. eloquently and convincingly about the fulsome testimony he has allowed JWR to give?  He has the full confidence of his ministers and was only trying to do what is right for Canada.
> 
> Or would you believe the CEO of a faceless multinational corporation involved in shady business deals with despots and tyrants and who's officers have already been convicted of criminal offences and who is, itself, facing criminal charges?
> 
> I know who I'd pick.


The Scot of course!


----------



## Haggis (23 Mar 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Scot of course!



Aye!, But which one?  Trudeau is part Sinclair.


----------



## FSTO (23 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Aye!, But which one?  Trudeau is part Sinclair.


The one who looks like he did some manual labour!  

Seriously, I can see the executive not mentioning number of jobs to the Government and the Government doing an estimation of the number of jobs in jeopardy so they are both right.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So, who are you going to believe, *Jarnhamar*?  Our open and transparent PM who has spoken frequently. eloquently and convincingly about the fulsome testimony he has allowed JWR to give?  He has the full confidence of his ministers and was only trying to do what is right for Canada.
> 
> Or would you believe the CEO of a faceless multinational corporation involved in shady business deals with despots and tyrants and who's officers have already been convicted of criminal offences and who is, itself, facing criminal charges?
> 
> I know who I'd pick.



That's a Socrates level conundrum if I ever heard one.


----------



## Remius (23 Mar 2019)

I’ll take what’s in the box.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I’ll take what’s in the box.



What, no door #3?


----------



## dapaterson (23 Mar 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I’ll take what’s in the box.



Mandatory UHF joke.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GB7mHxdHlRY


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Mar 2019)

Ah yes.  Stanley Spudowski's Play House, Drinking From the Firehose, and Wheel of Fish.  What a great movie!


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Mar 2019)

More fuel to feed the partisan fires, via #NotYetBoughtMedia wire service The Canadian Press ...


> Jody Wilson-Raybould recommended in 2017 that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau nominate a conservative Manitoba judge to be chief justice of the Supreme Court, even though he wasn’t a sitting member of the top court and had been a vocal critic of its activism on Charter of Rights issues, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> Well-placed sources say Jody Wilson-Raybould’s choice for chief justice was a moment of “significant disagreement” with Trudeau, who has touted the Liberals as “the party of the charter” and whose late father, Pierre Trudeau, spearheaded the drive to enshrine the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution in 1982.
> 
> ...


More @ link


----------



## FJAG (26 Mar 2019)

And yet, even more fuel:



> Chief Justice Glenn Joyal says his name is being used to ‘further an agenda’ in SNC-Lavalin dispute
> 
> SEAN FINE JUSTICE WRITER
> ROBERT FIFE OTTAWA BUREAU CHIEF
> ...



https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-chief-justice-glenn-joyal-says-his-names-being-used-as-part-of/

Looks like the PMO was trying to create an issue that wasn't there to help their boy out. 

op:

(Just as an aside Joyal had been briefly appointed by Harper to the Manitoba Court of Appeal in March of 2007 but several months later asked to be moved back to the Court of Queen's Bench for personal reasons. He was moved back in July of 2007. He was appointed Associate Chief Justice of the QB in Jan 2009 and Chief Justice of the Manitoba QB in Feb 2011)


----------



## FSTO (26 Mar 2019)

From what I read, appointments to the SCC is a very confidential process, even more confidential than cabinet discussions. I look forward to the investigation to the source of the leaks from the PCO. (SARCASM)


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Mar 2019)

> Citing unnamed sources, the news reports suggested Mr. Trudeau doubted Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s judgment.......



Priceless, Trudeau doubting someones judgement, and trusting his. Oh, the Drama. He's going down hill fast on that snowboard.


----------



## Remius (26 Mar 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> From what I read, appointments to the SCC is a very confidential process, even more confidential than cabinet discussions. I look forward to the investigation to the source of the leaks from the SCC. (SARCASM)



Those types of appointments are made through a section at PCO.  They have a team that deal with senior and GOC appointments.  The SCC would be too far removed. 

But remember that the outgoing head of the PCO is "retiring" and has shown his political bias somewhat.  His office is where I would look first.


----------



## TCM621 (26 Mar 2019)

> The ultimate decision on appointment to the SCC is always the PMs.



Maybe JWR offered her advise but it was always the PM's decision. Lol. This doesn't make Trudeau look any better. He got pissed because the AG, who is a lawyer and presumably more knowledgeable on legal matters, disagreed with him over the SCC appointment. So regardless of which story you believe, the common theme here is that Trudeau demoted her for not agreeing with him. He didn't want to lose her intersectional value in his cabinet so he moved her to a Ministry which Canadians don't really care about.  :'(


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Mar 2019)

About JWR being a lawyer. So what? Its an undergraduate degree that for more than 20 years has been almost impossible to fail. there is an articling period. , and some bar admission exams so watered down that anybody with a pulse could probably pass them.  She was a junior crown prosecutor for 3 years.  Hardly Lord Denning. However, in that position whoever is AG is surrounded by the best and brightest that choose to work for government (not necessarily the same thing as the best and brightest available.)  
Her main interests are/were Indigenous rights even if that meant putting the best interests of the country at risk while she was AG. More and more, we will begin to see evidence of this as the years unfold.

I'm no fan of JT and what happened with SNC, but she wasn't the snow white AG that many think she is.   None of them are, or they wouldn't get the job.


----------



## Remius (26 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I'm no fan of JT and what happened with SNC, but she wasn't the snow white AG that many think she is.



This. 

Considering the opposition claimed she was bungling the Justice portfolio before all this began.  Like Charlie Angus of the NDP calling for her to be fired.  

Now she's their hero.


----------



## FJAG (26 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> About JWR being a lawyer. So what? Its an undergraduate degree that for more than 20 years has been almost impossible to fail. there is an articling period. , and some bar admission exams so watered down that anybody with a pulse could probably pass them.  She was a junior crown prosecutor for 3 years.  Hardly Lord Denning. However, in that position whoever is AG is surrounded by the best and brightest that choose to work for government (not necessarily the same thing as the best and brightest available.)
> Her main interests are/were Indigenous rights even if that meant putting the best interests of the country at risk while she was AG. More and more, we will begin to see evidence of this as the years unfold.
> 
> I'm no fan of JT and what happened with SNC, but she wasn't the snow white AG that many think she is.   None of them are, or they wouldn't get the job.



Geez CC - why don't you tell us what you really think about lawyers?

I know this was over 20 years ago when I went through the process, but the big winnowing out came in the application process where more than 75% of the applicants were not accepted (that percentage varies from school to school). Over and above that there were the folks who didn't have the GPAs and LSAT scores to even bother applying.

That said we also lost 15% of our class through failures and drop outs. By the time you reach bar exams they are no longer looking to winnow out the stupid but simply to confirm that you have retained and learned to apply the knowledge required to practice law safely without screwing your clients over.

Law school provides a broad and basic education to know and understand how the law and its processes function. It's up to the party and the electorate after that to ensure that their representatives are up to snuff. If you want to blame anyone, blame the political process that puts people (like narcissistic real estate developers and acting teachers into positions of power and responsibility) Unfortunately unlike the US, we don't go outside the elected representatives to find highly qualified cabinet ministers (or maybe I should say fortunately considering some of the current gang of tramps down there)

Just to even out the thought process here, the short list of candidates for judicial appointments is created by a very knowledgeable and talented vetting team who provide a precis of each the recommended candidates to the AG/PM. Very few political leaders (even if they are lawyers) know enough about the individual candidates personally to be influenced in their decision by their own knowledge. They rely on the vetting list (and I don't doubt by informally and confidentially speaking to a few folks they know and trust to help them out in the process - in the past, before the vetting committee, this was the only way appointments were made)

I only take away two things from this latest pile of horse manure:

1) Trudeau appointed JWR to one of the highest most important cabinet positions. If she was deficient in any way then it reflects on his own competence to select qualified and competent people (the buck stops here!); and

2) disclosure that he was dissatisfied in any way with JWR at the time of the SCC appointment had to come from him and/or someone very close to him that he would trust enough to disclose this to. For a leader who is so outraged about "leaks" that he would push for a criminal process against and admiral he certainly seems to be even more leaky (people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones)

 :cheers:


----------



## FJAG (28 Mar 2019)

> SNC-Lavalin warned of U.S. move, slashing workforce if no plea deal, documents show
> 
> Quebec engineering firm warned it would move abroad within a year, cut workforce in Canada to 3,500
> The Canadian Press · Posted: Mar 28, 2019
> ...



See rest of article here:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-warned-of-move-abroad-1.5075840

 :cheers:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Mar 2019)

but they still want to bid on Canadian projects. LOL moment would be them to be charged by the EPA for something they had done down there as soon as they moved. The EPA does not fool around.


----------



## Jarnhamar (28 Mar 2019)

> "The government of Canada needs to weigh the public interest impact of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin," the presentation reads.



We committed fraud and corruption and if you don't let us off the hook we'll punish Canada by moving to the states at the expense of our Canadian employees.

I hope the conservatives win the next election and tell SNC to FRO.


----------



## Haggis (28 Mar 2019)

So we now know which Scot was telling the truth.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I hope the conservatives win the next election and tell SNC to FRO.



If they win and this matter is not dealt with, don't hold your breath that CPC will be any different in regards to this company.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> So we now know which Scot was telling the truth.



Cynic.  They were baith telling their ain truths.  ;D


----------



## Haggis (29 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Cynic.  They were baith telling their ain truths.  ;D



True, but this revelation would seen to vindicate the PM and his staff in their assertions that they were protecting Canadian jobs. However, even though the SNC-Lavalin CEO stated on TV that they understand that economic considerations should not be a factor in negotiating a DPA, they still threatened to pull out of Canada.  That would seem to infer that the PM, PMO et al were acquiescing to economic blackmail by influencing JWR.


----------



## FJAG (29 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> True, but this revelation would seen to vindicate the PM and his staff in their assertions that they were protecting Canadian jobs. However, even though the SNC-Lavalin CEO stated on TV that they understand that economic considerations should not be a factor in negotiating a DPA, they still threatened to pull out of Canada.  That would seem to infer that the PM, PMO et al were acquiescing to economic blackmail by influencing JWR.



I think "vindicate" is being overly generous. 

What it factually establishes is that 1) there was a threat from SNC respecting jobs and donations 2) the PM/PMO caved in to the threat 3) the PM/PMO overtly and repeatedly tried to influence the MOJ/AG to intervene/act inappropriately in a criminal prosecution.

IMHO that's not "vindication" but being an active participant in a criminal conspiracy to circumvent justice.

 :clubinhand:


----------



## Haggis (29 Mar 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I think "vindicate" is being overly generous.



Agreed, I probably could've selected a better word/phrase, like "explains" or 'clarifies" but I only become articulate on Fridays after TWO cups of coffee. 



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> What it factually establishes is that 1) there was a threat from SNC respecting jobs and donations 2) the PM/PMO caved in to the threat 3) the PM/PMO overtly and repeatedly tried to influence the MOJ/AG to intervene/act inappropriately in a criminal prosecution.
> 
> IMHO that's not "vindication" but being an active participant in a criminal conspiracy to circumvent justice.
> 
> :clubinhand:


I never said the PM/PMO's conduct was excusable as a result.  I wasn't *that* short on coffee!


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Mar 2019)

Well I guess we'll know if they release the tapes!! LoL!! https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-justice-committee-documents-audio-1.5076563


----------



## FJAG (29 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Agreed, I probably could've selected a better word/phrase, like "explains" or 'clarifies" but I only become articulate on Fridays after TWO cups of coffee.
> I never said the PM/PMO's conduct was excusable as a result.  I wasn't *that* short on coffee!



I gave up coffee a year ago.   I see the world in a whole different light now.  ullhair:

 ;D


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 Mar 2019)

A recording of the phone call causing all the buzz these days:

https://ourcommons.azureedge.net/data/ConversationJWRandWernick-e.m4a


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Mar 2019)

If you want to hear the unedited and original phone tape that JRW made when Wernick called her.

http://thesnctapes.com/


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Mar 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/newsalert-justice-committee-releases-texts-recording-from-wilson-raybould?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0cqViL17gnFgSX-vchxQQl6QLcwHuYJb3jcIrdFIlwiMdz3okEhF2gZDY#Echobox=1553891413

https://ourcommons.azureedge.net/data/ConversationJWRandWernick-e.m4a

Really interesting.  Raybould's recording of her conversation with Michael Wernick.

It hasn't changed my opinion on the overall situation but, having been on the phone for more than one of these types of conversations, and having learned to listen to the tone, I have to say I am more inclined towards a degree of empathy for Michael Wernick. 

He, more than Raybould, sounds like the person between a rock and a hard place.  

Is he trying to shepherd her as a member of the Privy Council, the Cabinet or as the Attorney General?  He can't be trying to shepherd her as a Liberal party member.  

Edit - Darn, beaten to it!   ;D


----------



## FJAG (29 Mar 2019)

He definitely sounds like a man who has been given an order to deliver a message and get things done by a PM who won't take no for an answer. That bit about "The PM wants to be able to say that he has tried everything that he can, you know , within the legitimate tool box. He's quite determined-quite firm-he wants to know why the DPA route which parliament provided for, isn't being used. ..." I think JWR's explanation about the independence of the prosecutor and that everyone knows we passed this law specifically for SNC and the pressure being put on her to overrule a perfectly defensible decision by the DPP is very honest on her part. So is her warning that she is trying hard to protect the PM from taking steps which everyone will conclude were ones of political interference in the judicial process and the rule of law.

I agree with you Chris. Wernick sounds like someone who was put between a rock and a hard place. At least JWR came from a position of a principled stand while Wernick seemed to understand quite well that the PM had given him the dirty work of trying to get her to do something that he knew she would properly refuse to do. My opinion of the PM (which was already quite low) couldn't sink any lower. Besides his being inexperienced, I now have him marked down as a coward as well.

 :stirpot:


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Mar 2019)

> "The PM wants to be able to say that he has tried everything that he can, you know , within the legitimate tool box. He's quite determined-quite firm-he wants to know why the DPA route which parliament provided for, isn't being used. ..."



Mr Wernick may be the messenger, but there's no misunderstanding the message. It reeks of political interference by the PM.


----------



## OldSolduer (29 Mar 2019)

This gets curiouser and curiouser.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Mar 2019)

Mr Wernick sounds like Mr Conductor from Thomas the Tank Engine.

Ohhhh Mr Trudeau is firm, he's quite firm.. You don't want him to be cross  :


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/newsalert-justice-committee-releases-texts-recording-from-wilson-raybould?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0cqViL17gnFgSX-vchxQQl6QLcwHuYJb3jcIrdFIlwiMdz3okEhF2gZDY#Echobox=1553891413
> 
> https://ourcommons.azureedge.net/data/ConversationJWRandWernick-e.m4a
> 
> ...



Yup.  Add to that the fact that the Justice Minister (he would only talk to her that way as a Cabinet matter, and so one assumes he is not talking to the AG), was well aware that the conversation was being recorded, and hence could steer the conversation.  Notwithstanding the fact that this egregious mess reeks of hubris, meddling and incompetence, there is something about this whole affair that does not ring true - it feels like we are all being played.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Yup.  Add to that the fact that the Justice Minister (he would only talk to her that way as a Cabinet matter, and so one assumes he is not talking to the AG), was well aware that the conversation was being recorded, and hence could steer the conversation.  Notwithstanding the fact that this egregious mess reeks of hubris, meddling and incompetence, there is something about this whole affair that does not ring true - it feels like we are all being played.



It begs the question about why such high quality recordings of phone calls even exist in the first place. What, exactly, triggered JWR to meticulously record all of her interactions on this subject (maybe that is she did on every subject?)?

That said, regardless of her ulterior motives (if she has any), the PM and his staff appear to have been stupid enough to enter the ambush and trigger every single mine. That is on them.

Looks like the Liberal party should be in full blown civil war by the end of the weekend...


----------



## Good2Golf (29 Mar 2019)

Arrogance and hubris often leads one (or many) into the KZ... :nod:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (29 Mar 2019)

I would record every single conversation I ever had if I was a politician in Ottawa, just saying.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (29 Mar 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Arrogance and hubris often leads one (or many) into the KZ... :nod:



X marks the ZT1001.....


----------



## Cloud Cover (29 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Yup.  Add to that the fact that the Justice Minister (he would only talk to her that way as a Cabinet matter, and so one assumes he is not talking to the AG), was well aware that the conversation was being recorded, and hence could steer the conversation.  Notwithstanding the fact that this egregious mess reeks of hubris, meddling and incompetence, there is something about this whole affair that does not ring true - it feels like we are all being played.



I think so too. At times it sounded far too rehearsed on her part, almost scripted vocabulary.

Also, on most smartphones there are apps one can download to record conversations. Usually, there is an audible sound (which I think I heard twice on the CTV clip) that notifies users the call is being recorded.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Mar 2019)

Keep in mind this is a woman that has always been an "Outsider", she is likely to have learned to cover her butt as she goes. In meetings with First Nations it was common to be recorded, never would they share it either. It's quite possible that she feels jilted and lied to, so is willing to bring the house down with her, she go back to her nation as a hero regardless and has both provincial and First Nation political futures ahead of her.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Mar 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Keep in mind this is a woman that has always been an "Outsider", she is likely to have learned to cover her butt as she goes. In meetings with First Nations it was common to be recorded, never would they share it either. It's quite possible that she feels jilted and lied to, so is willing to bring the house down with her, she go back to her nation as a hero regardless and has both provincial and First Nation political futures ahead of her.



And that is what I was getting at earlier, upthread, her support system - family, culture, gods, society, environment - owes nothing to Ottawa, Montreal or Toronto.  Those facts leave her free to act - a truly frightening thought for the Laurentian tribe.


----------



## meni0n (29 Mar 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I think so too. At times it sounded far too rehearsed on her part, almost scripted vocabulary.
> 
> Also, on most smartphones there are apps one can download to record conversations. Usually, there is an audible sound (which I think I heard twice on the CTV clip) that notifies users the call is being recorded.



Kind of like repeating the same thing month after month but it doesn't really ring the bell ? If I have to say the same thing for months on end, I would sound like that as well.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 Mar 2019)

meni0n said:
			
		

> Kind of like repeating the same thing month after month but it doesn't really ring the bell ? If I have to say the same thing for months on end, I would sound like that as well.



And that is the other potential side of this. If this was the 10th? 40th? 100th? time she had to explain her point of view on this issue to someone in cabinet, the PMO or PCO, she would sound like she had rehearsed it by the time this phone call happened.


----------



## ModlrMike (29 Mar 2019)

Maybe she knew that the excrement was going to hit the fan that she was making sure nothing landed on her.


----------



## Kirkhill (29 Mar 2019)

And these are the official interactions.

How many times was she approached in caucus, or by fellow MPs?


----------



## Haggis (29 Mar 2019)

Some media outlets and pundits are now making hay over the question of the legality and the ethics of this recording.  I'm quite sure that JWR was fully conversant with the laws regarding this.  it is, in fact, legal for JWR to record telephone conversations she is a particpant in (CCC 184(2)(a)).  Legally, there is no prior notice required.  Ethically, prior notice could be expected or demanded and if the caller (Wernick) refused to consent to the recording he could choose to terminate the call.

To me, it's ironic that it came to light that Wernick was recorded after his sarcastic replies to the Justice Committee that he "wasn't wearing a wire" during his conversations with JWR.


----------



## PuckChaser (29 Mar 2019)

At what point would a (up until 2016) member of the bar, feel so pressured by the perceived political interference that she feel she would have to make a recording so she does not get railroaded by the Liberal Party and Justin Trudeau? Listening to the full tape, Wernick is stuck as a messenger carrying Trudeau's directives to her, and she makes it abundantly clear multiple times that she's trying to protect the PM from the appearance of impropriety. Looking at the totality of the witness statements, the PM and the PMO ignored the warnings and pushed ahead anyways.

Totally spits in the face of the rule of law that the PM espoused when talking about the Huawei CFO.


----------



## Jarnhamar (29 Mar 2019)

I'd say anyone who is knowingly recording themselves in a conversation is going to subconsciously be a little more articulate and precise with their language to the point where it may sound rehearsed.

Given the amount of pressure, subtle and not so subtle threats floating around JWR probably rehearsed every conversation before she had them. Who would blame her?


----------



## Haggis (30 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd say anyone who is knowingly recording themselves in a conversation is going to subconsciously be a little more articulate and precise with their language to the point where it may sound rehearsed.


Watching CTV Power Play this afternoon where journalist Joyce Napier stated almost exactly that from the perspective of a journalist who is on live TV and knows that every word, phrase and nuance she utters could be replayed and dissected ad nauseum for weeks afterwards.  Why should any member of the MSM  expect any less from a senior cabinet minister?


----------



## FJAG (30 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> I'd say anyone who is knowingly recording themselves in a conversation is going to subconsciously be a little more articulate and precise with their language to the point where it may sound rehearsed.
> 
> Given the amount of pressure, subtle and not so subtle threats floating around JWR probably rehearsed every conversation before she had them. Who would blame her?



Knowingly recording yourself aside, anyone who is going to have a telephone conversation of the nature and substance she probably expected to have with Wernick would undoubtedly have gone over the points she wanted to make, had them in a list on her desk, rehearsed the discussion in her mind and kept contemporaneous notes (or in this case a recording) of the conversation. That's just common sense at that level in this type of situation.

Just as an aside I find it interesting that she made mention of the fact that they had their sh*t together on the Norman matter considering the allegations of PCO discussions of strategy with the prosecutors.

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2019)

Woulda, shoulda, coulda.
Bottom line, the PM was out of line and showing favouritism to a donor, to obstruct the normal course of justice. Recorded, set up, backstabbed? It's an everyday fact of life for criminals. They chose the path, they cant complain when caught.

Every criminal and politician knows the adage of no honour amongst thieves. It should have been expected, so arrogance likely played a part in the ambush also.


----------



## Haggis (30 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> It should have been expected, so arrogance likely played a part in the ambush also.



It's only an ambush if she recorded just that conversation.  If she recorded others as a matter of routine, then it wasn't an ambush.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Mar 2019)

I agree with Haggis on this one.

Since it became easy to make digital recordings on computers, most lawyers I know (including myself) usually record any telecon that is known to be of some substance (other than just scheduling or minimal info) and usually just filed away in the client's electronic file after a memo completed summarizing - just so you can refer back to as the need may be at later time.

Nothing nefarious, just a working tool in a world where facts, dates and time of acquiring knowledge of same are important matters.


----------



## YZT580 (30 Mar 2019)

So what happens next?  IMHO it is too late for JT to clear the air through confession and the odds of his being able to survive another election are not good.  There have been reports that the libs. were agitating to turf the ladies but they would be better to turf Justin: admit that he did all these things on his own contrary to liberal principles blah blah blah and quickly select a new leader while they remain in government.  That way they may preserve some seats come October and put themselves in position to be a strong, principled, opposition.  who knows, they might even pull of a minority victory.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Mar 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> So what happens next?  IMHO it is too late for JT to clear the air through confession and the odds of his being able to survive another election are not good.  There have been reports that the libs. were agitating to turf the ladies but they would be better to turf Justin: admit that he did all these things on his own contrary to liberal principles blah blah blah and quickly select a new leader while they remain in government.  That way they may preserve some seats come October and put themselves in position to be a strong, principled, opposition.  who knows, they might even pull of a minority victory.



The Liberals won't jettison JT. Those who like him, like him alot. It verges on personality cult. It is not like any of the folks at the centre of this are suddenly going to have a moment of moral clarity and resign.

Plus, it must be remembered that Trudeau is a formidable campaigner and an election is in October. That is 6 months away, which is a long time in politics.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The Liberals won't jettison JT. Those who like him, like him alot. It verges on personality cult. It is not like any of the folks at the centre of this are suddenly going to have a moment of moral clarity and resign.


Agree completely, having heard this week from a JT fan that "there's nothing to this; the Conservatives just keep trying to make this seem important because they have nothing to offer themselves."

For many people, when your mind is made up, facts are of no consequence.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> It's only an ambush if she recorded just that conversation.  If she recorded others as a matter of routine, then it wasn't an ambush.


Yeah, ambush was a bad choice in words.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Mar 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Yeah, ambush was a bad choice in words.



The Tyee is reporting that JWR has stated that this is the only conversation that she recorded.

If true, make of it what you will.


----------



## Kirkhill (30 Mar 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The Tyee is reporting that JWR has stated that this is the only conversation that she recorded.
> 
> If true, make of it what you will.



Interesting.  Coupled with statements made by PMO, PCO and participants in the Admiral Norman cases it would appear that keeping records is only for plebes.  

I keep hearing elements of Natasha - "But Dahlink, I am too important...."


----------



## ballz (30 Mar 2019)

I don't really see how its an ambush. 

Putting this into context, this is after this has sustained for months and is coming a peak point in the pressure. This is *after* the conversation her DM had with Butts and Telford, in which her DM reported to her some disturbing things. It's clear her DM also felt they were asking her to interfere based on the text messages.

Now she's been asked to call the Clerk (clear this was at his request, not hers)... 

So I can fully understand someone in her shoes, given the events that had transpired up to that point, why she might be inclined to record the conversation. That doesn't make it an ambush, it's not like she requested the call and started steering the conversation. He requested the call and quite frankly *he* led the conversation the entire time.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2019)

The PMO states that the Clerk never discussed with Trudeau the results of his call to JWR.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5113193/pmo-michael-wernick-jody-wilson-raybould/

*Michael Wernick never briefed Trudeau that he spoke with Wilson-Raybould: PMO*

Extract: The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) said the clerk of the Privy Council Office (PCO) never briefed Justin Trudeau on his talk with ex-attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, that was captured on a recording released on Friday. In a statement to Global News, the PMO also said it was “unaware of the full contents of this recording before today.”


----------



## ballz (30 Mar 2019)

There are numerous ways this could get filthier... but the Clerk now having been thrown under the bus and stating that he did brief JT would be one of the bigger ones...

That said, considering he already straight-up lied to the Justice committee about that conversation makes me think he's just gonna accept the tread marks on his face.


----------



## Jarnhamar (30 Mar 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> The PMO states that the Clerk never discussed with Trudeau the results of his call to JWR.
> 
> https://globalnews.ca/news/5113193/pmo-michael-wernick-jody-wilson-raybould/
> 
> ...



I believe it.
He never technically officially briefed Trudeau on the talk with her afterwards, makes for perfect deniability for the PM if shit goes sideways, which it did.
Trudeau told him what he wanted to happen, told him he wasn't taking no for an answer, and told him not to tell him about the conversation afterwards. Pretty smart.


----------



## GAP (30 Mar 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> That said, considering he already straight-up lied to the Justice committee about that conversation makes me think he's just gonna accept the tread marks on his face.



and the "sudden" resignation from the Public service...... :


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2019)

The Clerk's comment, at his second appearance in front of the Committee, that his recollection re his discussion with JWR that he wasn't wearing a wire would appear to indicate that he found out that the conversation was recorded.

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-wilson-raybould-wernick-butts-philpott-whats-next-in-the-snc-affair



> On the second occasion, he sparred with opposition MPs by repeating “I wasn’t wearing a wire” when asked about key interactions with Wilson-Raybould. As he tried to counter her version of events, he managed to look both evasive and contemptuous.



Take one for the team Mr. Clerk.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (30 Mar 2019)

Let's be clear here, and translate from from "politicalese" while applying logic to the statement.

Trudeau stated that he was "unaware of the full contents of this recording before today".

First, the logic: Since before today, Trudeau was unaware that the recording even existed, I would say that he was unaware of any of its content.

Now the politicalese: Trudeau is unaware of the _full_ content. This means he is aware of some of the contents. Now, this makes perfect sense since the Clerk would not have reported every single word of the conversation verbatim to the PM - unless Wernick is an anal retentive person who memorizes every detail of every conversation they have ever had and repeat them word for word. Moreover, Trudeau does not indicate which part of the contents of the conversation he was aware of, and which part he wasn't.

Clearly, another attempt at diversion using useless drivel that permits both claiming that he "answered" Wilson-Raybould's "recording" issue, while covering his ass for later, when the details of what he knew exactly of it come out. He''l be bale to say he never lied about what he did or did not know ('cause he never mentioned it).


----------



## ModlrMike (30 Mar 2019)

More to come: there appears to be a groundswell of opinion that JWR and Dr Bennett should be ejected from caucus.

Pressure building in Liberal caucus to eject Wilson-Raybould, Philpott

A growing number of Liberal MPs say they're prepared to boot Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from caucus next week, according to a survey of dozens of Liberal MPs by CBC News.

CBC News has learned that MPs will discuss expelling the two women when they return to Parliament from their ridings next week.

CBC Link


----------



## Good2Golf (30 Mar 2019)

People should always be mindful of the saying, “be careful what you ask for.”


----------



## daftandbarmy (30 Mar 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> More to come: there appears to be a groundswell of opinion that JWR and Dr Bennett should be ejected from caucus.
> 
> Pressure building in Liberal caucus to eject Wilson-Raybould, Philpott
> 
> ...



Why? 

Because it's 2019  8)


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Mar 2019)

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-the-jody-wilson-raybould-solution

*Christie Blatchford: The Jody Wilson-Raybould solution* - 30 Mar 19
      _The day after Trudeau pointed to her ongoing presence in cabinet as evidence that should allay any concerns about the propriety of government conduct in relation to SNC, she quit
_
OTTAWA — They’re thugs – the senior people in the office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, the clerk of the privy council and the nation’s top bureaucrat, the people in the office of Finance Minister Bill Morneau — or so close as to be indistinguishable from them.

I refer to their collective behaviour around the SNC-Lavalin imbroglio, in particular their relentless effort to strong-arm the deposed attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould into finding a way (a “solution” they called it) to give the big Quebec-based engineering and construction giant what’s called a DPA, or deferred prosecution agreement.

SNC-Lavalin is facing charges of fraud and bribery for its alleged conduct in Libya between 2001 and 2011. Assuming the case goes to trial (a decision from the preliminary hearing judge is expected soon), a DPA would spare the company the pain of a criminal conviction and the resulting potential 10-year ban on bidding on government contracts. Kathleen Roussel, JWR’s Director of Public Prosecutions, had decided by early September a DPA wasn’t appropriate in the case; by mid-September, Wilson-Raybould had decided she wouldn’t interfere.

As is now clear, both from the written submissions, including text messages and a surreptitiously recorded phone conversation with the aforementioned privy council clerk Michael Wernick, that JWR sent the Parliamentary justice committee this week, some of those people threatened the former AG herself.

Some of them threatened her staff, notably Jessica Prince, also an accomplished lawyer. When, for instance, Prince’s briefing on what Morneau’s chief of staff Ben Chin told her led to JWR telling Morneau in the House of Commons, in effect, to call off his dogs, Chin told Prince, “your boss spoke to Bill yesterday and said that me and Elder [Marques, a lawyer and senior advisor in the PMO] were ‘mucking around’ on this file. “Be careful when using my name Jess,” Chin said.

Collectively, these people bandied about the name of former Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin as though she were just another legal gun-for-hire, an ambulance chaser who would, you know wink-wink, just do the bidding of her client and supply the desired opinion upon request.

One of them, the former Trudeau principal secretary Gerry Butts, when asked by Prince what questions an “external counsel” (McLachlin had been mentioned by name already by Butts and Wernick and, according to Wernick, by Trudeau) might be asked, replied, “Whether the AG can review the DPP’s decision here?” and “whether she should in this case?”

Prince asked a hypothetical. “What,” she asked, “if the opinion comes saying ‘She can review it, but she shouldn’t’ or simply, ‘She can’t review it’?” “Mr. Butts stated, ‘it wouldn’t say that,’” Prince told JWR. Prince remembered this very clearly, JWR said in her written submission to the justice committee, “because this response made her nervous.” I bet it did: _It’s not every day that high-ranking government officials talk about a former chief justice with such overt familiarity and with such a casual sense of ownership.
_
Justin To, another PMO advisor (he was identified as one of Morneau’s, perhaps because his bailiwick was economics, or perhaps he’s switched jobs), called Prince the same day. He steered the conversation to SNC and whinged, “why can’t SNC just go through the process?” Prince replied that it was the DPP who controls the process. To said, “It’s just a bit ironic that she [JWR] wants an alternative justice [a reference to restorative justice] to be available in one sense, but not for SNC.

”This of course appears to have been a sly shot at Wilson-Raybould’s Aboriginal roots; true restorative justice, with the notion that offender and victim can sometimes meet in a healing circle and speak more truthfully and to a better end for both of them than might be achieved in a more adversarial court process, started with Canada’s Indigenous people. (To his credit, To later the same day emailed Prince to apologize if there was any misunderstanding. Prince replied politely, but she and JWR had understood very well what he’d meant.)

And then there was that astonishing phone call with Wernick on Dec. 18, wherein she repeatedly told him in the firmest terms that even the call they were having was inappropriate — that the constitutional principle of prosecutorial independence was at risk with their conversation and all the ones that had gone before it — and he simply would not quit. *Wernick was merely doing the PM’s bidding, of course, and was reporting back to him that very night, he said.* (see article "Michael Wernick never briefed Trudeau that he spoke with Wilson-Raybould: PMO" and see Oldgateboatdriver's comment above)


The PM was very concerned, he told Wilson-Raybould, about this “signature firm”, SNC, and “job loss and all that coming after the Oshawa thing [the shutdown of the GM plant] and what is going on in Calgary and what-not.” If ever Alberta wanted a glimpse of the hive mind in Justin Trudeau’s office, it came here: The job losses in the oil sands, the stalled pipelines, the vacant office space, that was “Calgary and what-not”.

But SNC was a “signature” firm for which all the stops must be pulled out. Wernick told her he was worried about a “collision” between her and the PM. Trudeau was very firm. “I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another.”

The next time she heard from the PM or anyone in the PMO was on Jan. 7, when Trudeau told her she was being shuffled out of justice and the AG. She told him, and Butts, that she believed it was “because of a decision I would not take in the SNC-Lavalin DPA matter, which they denied.”

She turned down Indigenous affairs, and was aghast she’d even been offered it, given her well-known views of getting beyond the Indian Act. But after some deliberation, she decided she would take the PM at his word and accepted veterans affairs. She also made another decision, in private, “that I would immediately resign if the new attorney-general decided” to do what she had refused to do because she knew it was so wrong. The day after Justin Trudeau pointed to her ongoing presence in cabinet as evidence that should allay any concerns about the propriety of government conduct in relation to SNC and said her presence “spoke for itself”, she quit.

“I trust my resignation also speaks for itself,” she said. What a pistol she is.

(And by the way, I love that while she liked being the AG, she never described it as her “dream job”; that, she said, was Gerry Butts’ description. “I’m not sure I’d refer to any job as a dream job,” she said. That’s because she’s a proper adult; I bet she similarly has no “dream house”. And I love how Jess Prince once told her, of the condescending PMO gang, “I hate that they call you Jody.”)

She is writing their epitaph.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Notwithstanding the fact that this egregious mess reeks of hubris, meddling and incompetence, there is something about this whole affair that does not ring true - it feels like we are all being played.



Agreed.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2019)

> Notwithstanding the fact that this egregious mess reeks of hubris, meddling and incompetence, there is something about this whole affair that does not ring true - it feels like we are all being played.



It certainly seems that way. Far too many high profile people; cabinet ministers, the Principle Secretary of the PMO and the Chief Clerk of the Privy council all resigning over this affair suggests there is a lot more that we haven't found out yet. Investigative journalists might circle back to SNC Lavalin.


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Mar 2019)

If they get punted, I can just imagine the floodgates opening and a lot of before unheard of shenanigans will come spilling out.  here's hoping, anyway.


----------



## Jed (30 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> If they get punted, I can just imagine the floodgates opening and a lot of before unheard of shenanigans will come spilling out.  here's hoping, anyway.




Colour me cynical.  If and when they get punted the result will not be a bunch of corruption being exposed; it will be just like all the BS surrounding the Obama / Hillary era across the border. It will all be obfuscated by the Global Elitist tycoons and their minions using the mainstream media to play political games.


After all we can't let the people democratically elect moral and ethical representatives can we?


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 Mar 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Colour me cynical.  If and when they get punted the result will not be a bunch of corruption being exposed; it will be just like all the BS surrounding the Obama / Hillary era across the border. It will all be obfuscated by the Global Elitist tycoons and their minions using the mainstream media to play political games.
> 
> 
> After all we can't let the people democratically elect moral and ethical representatives can we?



What was I thinking?  :facepalm:


----------



## PPCLI Guy (31 Mar 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Colour me cynical.  If and when they get punted the result will not be a bunch of corruption being exposed; i*t will be just like all the BS surrounding the Obama / Hillary era across the border. *It will all be obfuscated by the Global Elitist tycoons and their minions using the mainstream media to play political games.
> 
> 
> After all we can't let the people democratically elect moral and ethical representatives can we?



Like the replacements for Obama / Clinton?  Trump.  Giuliani.  McConnell.  The whole cast of unsavoury characters surrounding the administration.  That kind of moral and ethical?

As to Global Elitist Tycoons.....please enlighten me as to who, exactly, they are, what their end state is, and from whence they draw their power / influence.  Please be sure to give me a Koch brother for every Soros.


----------



## Jed (31 Mar 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Like the replacements for Obama / Clinton?  Trump.  Giuliani.  McConnell.  The whole cast of unsavoury characters surrounding the administration.  That kind of moral and ethical?
> 
> As to Global Elitist Tycoons.....please enlighten me as to who, exactly, they are, what their end state is, and from whence they draw their power / influence.  Please be sure to give me a Koch brother for every Soros.


  Maybe I should have said NWO Elitist Tycoons.  Mere Political Party status means nothing to them really. You are the one that assumed I was picking on just Democrat’s. How about the big Cable News talking heads that say stuff just to sell a product. None of them seem to have the well being of the country or the people in mind. It’s all about the Benjamins Baby.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Mar 2019)

Globalist or Internationalist. Is there a difference?

Capitalist or Socialist?
Fascist or Communist?
Liberal or Fabian?

My problem is with the word Order in New World Order. 

In my world a little Order goes a very long way and, like garlic, should be used sparingly, so as not to overpower.


----------



## daftandbarmy (31 Mar 2019)

Target Up said:
			
		

> If they get punted, I can just imagine the floodgates opening and a lot of before unheard of shenanigans will come spilling out.  here's hoping, anyway.



'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.' Michael Corleone

Based on that 'Godfather' principle, he'll probably keep them


----------



## Remius (31 Mar 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> 'Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.' Michael Corleone
> 
> Based on that 'Godfather' principle, he'll probably keep them



Sure. He might try to keep them. But I think a strong majority of caucus has likely had enough.  If they decide she has to go at least it stops being an internal problem.

Also I think JWRs political future is now in doubt.  Whatever one may feel about this situation the fact remains that she will likely never be trusted again by anyone. 

Let’s say she does run for the leadership at the provincial level which is something I have heard, how can anyone in her own cabinet ever trust that they are not being recorded?  If I were them or her leader I would be recording everything.  That removes any possibility of confidence and candour behind the scenes.

Once she is out Trudeau has two options.  Call a spring election to change the channel maybe or resign and let someone else salvage what they can.


----------



## Jarnhamar (31 Mar 2019)

[quote author=Remius] how can anyone in her own cabinet ever trust that they are not being recorded?  If I were them or her leader I would be recording everything.  
[/quote]

You answered your own question good sir. 
Why would anyone in their own cabinet ever trust that they weren't being recorded?

Thats my rule #4 for new leaders. Always assume every conversation you have is being recorded and every action you do is being videotaped.


----------



## Kirkhill (31 Mar 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You answered your own question good sir.
> Why would anyone in their own cabinet ever trust that they weren't being recorded?
> 
> Thats my rule #4 for new leaders. Always assume every conversation you have is being recorded and every action you do is being videotaped.



Or, putting it another way: never say anything you may live to regret, anywhere, any time, no matter what the circumstances.


----------



## FJAG (31 Mar 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Or, putting it another way: never say anything you may live to regret, anywhere, any time, no matter what the circumstances.



Ditto. Absolutely, ditto.

 :cheers:


----------



## Haggis (1 Apr 2019)

This took longer than expected.  I figured members of the Liberal caucus would be much quicker to chastise JWR for unethical behaviour.  The focus will now shift away from what was said to how it was captured.  Another attempt to change the channel.  The only problem with that is that it appears that JWR is holding the remote.


----------



## Jarnhamar (1 Apr 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> This took longer than expected.  I figured members of the Liberal caucus would be much quicker to chastise JWR for unethical behaviour.  The focus will now shift away from what was said to how it was captured.  Another attempt to change the channel.  The only problem with that is that it appears that JWR is holding the remote.



Trudeau's Liberals criticizing someone for ethics? Brilliant. I personally couldn't be happier with how the Liberals have handled this and continue to do so.

I'm bet most people have at one point in their careers either been in a private conversation with their boss they wish they recorded, or, had some kind of stressful conversation about work issues where they felt ganged up on and wish they recorded it. Canadians definitely won't identify with the position JWR felt she was in and won't see this as a desperate attempt to deflect  :


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> This took longer than expected.  I figured members of the Liberal caucus would be much quicker to chastise JWR for unethical behaviour.  The focus will now shift away from what was said to how it was captured.  Another attempt to change the channel.  The only problem with that is that it appears that JWR is holding the remote.



It's not unethical, nor was it illegal in any way. On the face it's a personal recording that just happened to become relevant to another portion of the case. Nothing to see.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> It's not unethical, nor was it illegal in any way. On the face it's a personal recording that just happened to become relevant to another portion of the case. Nothing to see.



Not according to Patty Hadju who is still hooked on our version of Flavor Aid


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> Not according to Patty Hadju who is still hooked on our version of Flavor Aid



Meh. Typical grit. 'If I don't think it's right, nobody should think it's right.' Much like the rest of the thoughtless propaganda that's been floating the left along for almost four years. People have learned that just because a liberal says something, it is far from certain whether it is the truth or not. Every decision they make has to be questioned. It has become the norm to look 180 degrees to see if the truth actually lies there instead. That just shows the immense distrust Canadians have of this government. The first SOP for this party, when fighting to back up their lies, is to demonize and smear the offending actor. It is all it's been doing during this mandate. Four years later and it's still all Harper's fault :rofl:. There is no 'taking responsibility' there. Only baseless blame and full court press on your integrity, as far as they can twist it with lies.

The very last thing any liberal should be doing is speaking of ethics from a position of authority.


----------



## 211RadOp (1 Apr 2019)

Another filibuster coming...



> *Conservative MP Poilievre launches budget debate filibuster over SNC-Lavalin *
> 
> Published Monday, April 1, 2019 12:35PM EDT
> Last Updated Monday, April 1, 2019 1:25PM EDT
> ...



More at link


https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/conservative-mp-poilievre-launches-budget-debate-filibuster-over-snc-lavalin-1.4360482


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Apr 2019)

211RadOp said:
			
		

> Another filibuster coming...
> 
> More at link
> 
> ...



Not sure what it is specifically, but he's one of those people that I find inherently annoying. Having to hear him filibuster would have me drinking in the aisles of Parliament (if I was daft enough to run, and anyone was ever daft enough to elect me)


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Not sure what it is specifically, but he's one of those people that I find inherently annoying. Having to hear him filibuster would have me drinking in the aisles of Parliament (if I was daft enough to run, and anyone was ever daft enough to elect me)



Yep.  Until I met him in person.  He annoys me with his tv persona.  Up close and personal I found him to be a different guy altogether.


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

To expand on what is going on I note a few things.

Was JWR acting as a lawyer for the government?  It seems to me yes.  She herself claimed that solicitor client privilege prevented her from going into details.  If so then yes there is definitely an ethical breach although not an illegal one.  As far as I can tell.  Lawyers recording conversation in secret is frowned upon by most of the legal community as far as I know.

However...

That issue of ethical standards should be viewed in a vacuum and does not diminish what was said, by whom and when and where.

The fact (brought up by a pundit whose point I agree with) that most of the Liberal mouth pieces are more concerned about the recording of the conversation and not the content is telling.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Apr 2019)

Considering the ethics violations this liberal leader gets away with, how can anyone else even think about saying it about JRW? It is a business norm for the party. The PM has made a mockery of ethics.

Definitely throwing rocks from the balconies of their glass houses.

Two faced hypocrites. The most unethical government ever, preaching ethics  :rofl:


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Apr 2019)

If the tape completely exonerated the PM, then the Liberals would be shouting it from the rooftops. That they're not, speaks volumes. Add in the shooting the messenger campaign, and it makes them look more culpable than before.


----------



## Kirkhill (1 Apr 2019)

By the way of something and nothing -

I note that the whole idea of "party" seems to be taking a bit of a beating these days.  Frankly, I think that is not a bad thing.

But looking at the number of "rebels" against the party line in the US, in Britain, and in Canada, it seems to be coming entrenched that the Whips may as well be Floggers.

It is particularly interesting that in The Mother of Parliaments, that the Government can't even keep its Ministers in line.  Some Ministers have resigned, honourably, to oppose the Government, but apparently many others find the cause more important than their honour.

Curious days.


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> By the way of something and nothing -
> 
> I note that the whole idea of "party" seems to be taking a bit of a beating these days.  Frankly, I think that is not a bad thing.
> 
> ...



Yes. Note that the current three dissenters are not career politicians and were recruited to “do politics differently”.   Certainly the end result is different lol.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Apr 2019)

Hmm... who is the Whip for the Government right now?


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

Mark Holland. 

With the recent shuffles I don’t know if that is current though.


----------



## Navy_Pete (1 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Yep.  Until I met him in person.  He annoys me with his tv persona.  Up close and personal I found him to be a different guy altogether.



Good to know, thanks!  Try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and it wasn't any thing logical, so maybe it was the tv soundbite mannerisms that set my teeth on edge.  I mean, he is a politician, so they are all inherently starting from a position of untrustworthiness, but had no specific good reason to like/dislike him.


----------



## Remius (1 Apr 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> Good to know, thanks!  Try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and it wasn't any thing logical, so maybe it was the tv soundbite mannerisms that set my teeth on edge.  I mean, he is a politician, so they are all inherently starting from a position of untrustworthiness, but had no specific good reason to like/dislike him.



Oh I hear you.  I couldn’t stand it when he was on panels or in front of a camera.  I still get annoyed.  But I have a different respect for him after meeting him as my MP face to face.  Night and day.


----------



## FJAG (1 Apr 2019)

Just to put some specifics on the issue of whether or not it is permissible for a lawyer to record a conversation, here are the entries from the CBA Professional Code of Conduct for the Law Societies of Ontario and BC:

Ontario


> 7.2-3 A lawyer shall not use any device to record a conversation between the lawyer and a client or another legal practitioner, even if lawful, without first informing the other person of the intention to do so.



BC


> 7.2-3  A lawyer must not use any device to record a conversation between the lawyer and a client or another lawyer, even if lawful, without first informing the other person of the intention to do so.
> 
> Annotations
> 
> ...



Note while the second BC annotations says "anyone" note as well that section 7.2-3 specifically identifies other lawyers and the client who shall not be recorded without notice.

This begs several questions: Does the clerk of the privy council constitute part of the client? Do the actions of the PCO/PMO's members indicate an intention to commit a criminal offence?

I'll leave it to others to play with that. For me I'm satisfied that whatever she did pales in light of what the PM was doing. The Liberals piling on her now is simply a case of killing the messenger rather dealing with the wrongdoings of the PM/PMO/PCO.

 :cheers:


----------



## ballz (1 Apr 2019)

The Clerk was pretty adamant he was talking to the Minister of Justice, not the AG.  :stars:


----------



## Haggis (2 Apr 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> The Liberals piling on her now is simply a case of killing the messenger rather dealing with the wrongdoings of the PM/PMO/PCO.



This comment probably fits in the Gun Control 2.0 thread, but in a similar vein at the municipal level, a Cambridge are Councillor reacted to the stabbing of a local gun store owner with a sort of  "Wait, woah... there's a gun store downtown?".


----------



## PPCLI Guy (2 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> The Clerk was pretty adamant he was talking to the Minister of Justice, not the AG.  :stars:



The former is a Member of Cabinet, subject to Cabinet Confidence, and expected to reflect the political interests of the caucus.  The latter is a politically independent element of the judiciary.  While it would be ideal to separate the two positions, others have managed just fine with the distinction.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Apr 2019)

An article I agree with.

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190402

*What Liberals want you to believe about SNC-Lavalin* - National Post - 2 Apr 19 - KELLY MCPARLAND
      _HOW IS IT THAT NEITHER BUTTS NOR TRUDEAU REALIZED SOMETHING WAS BADLY AMISS_

In order to believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s version of his dispute with his former attorney general, you have to accept that an astonishing series of missteps, misunderstandings and lost opportunities were entirely innocent. 

You have to believe that when Jody Wilson- Raybould told Trudeau in September that she had made up her mind and would not interfere with the decision to proceed with a prosecution against SNC -Lavalin, he either didn’t grasp what she was saying, or didn’t accept how serious she was.

You have to trust that none of the numerous complaints she made over the ensuing weeks, warning that the pressure being exerted was inappropriate and had to stop, made it through to Trudeau.

You have to consider it wholly believable that Gerald Butts, the political whizz-kid and guru considered the brains behind the throne, likewise missed or misinterpreted the signals, and didn’t alert his boss that they had a real problem.

You have to find nothing odd in the fact none of the supposedly highly- skilled and politically adept people surrounding Trudeau appreciated the severity of the warning Wilson- Raybould was making: that if Trudeau used his office to muscle a subordinate to interfere in the independence of the public prosecutor, he was racing headlong towards a cliff and was taking his government with him.

Even though Wilson- Raybould says she has “documented evidence” to the contrary, you have to believe that the Prime Minister’s Office never received the formal explanation — known as a Section 13 — outlining the reasoning for going ahead with the Lavalin prosecution, and that, in all the months of back- and- forth among ministers, their staff and the PMO, no one took the time to acquaint Trudeau with the contents of that report.

If you want to agree with complaints that the whole affair has been overblown, you need to accept at face value the apparent inability of Michael Wernick, supposedly among the top minds in the civil service, to understand why Wilson- Raybould refused to use the “tools” she had at her disposal to halt the prosecution of SNC, even after she made crystal clear in their 17- minute phone conversation that using those tools would inevitably explode in the face of the government. And you need to take seriously Wernick’s claim that he didn’t pass on the message to Trudeau, despite specifically telling Wilson- Raybould he had to “report back,” because everyone left town the next day on a holiday.

This is the same Wernick, remember, who opened the conversation by warning that time was of the essence, that Trudeau was eager to find a solution, and had earlier testified that if she had concerns, the minister could have contacted Trudeau any time, at any hour, because he was always available.

It’s a lot to accept. But there’s even more to digest. For instance, how is it that neither Butts nor Trudeau realized something was badly amiss when Jane Philpott told them Wilson- Raybould might feel that shuffling her out of her job was punishment for refusing to cave to Trudeau’s demands? And how could they be shocked when Wilson- Raybould demurred from accepting a transfer to Indigenous Services, a post she’d made known she could never accept?

Is it really feasible that no one in the Liberal hierarchy foresaw that imposing limits on Wilson-raybould’s ability to testify before the justice committee would strike a negative chord with Canadians, or that letting Liberal MPS peremptorily shut down the committee in the wake of her testimony would only make things worse?

There are Liberals out there who insist they can buy the whole package, that accept Trudeau’s bland assurances over the minister’s detailed evidence. Somehow they can listen to the Wernick phone call and not see what’s going on: a minister being strong- armed by a powerful messenger armed with warnings that the boss is “going to find a way to get it done, one way or another.” They argue that Trudeau would never act in such a threatening manner, that it’s out of character.

But the truth is, it’s entirely in character, and the proof has been there all along, in multiple examples of Trudeau’s response to situations that try his patience. Such as when he elbowed his way across the Commons to berate a member of the opposition. Or the moment in Edmonton when he sarcastically suggested a woman use the term “peoplekind” rather than “mankind.” Or his determination to block students from summer jobs unless organizations employing them signed a statement attesting to support Liberal values.

Or his snarky response just last week to an inconvenient intruder at a Liberal fundraiser who tried to draw attention to the ongoing health problems at Grassy Narrows, a First Nations community long troubled by mercury poisoning. Over more than three years of working closely with Trudeau, Wilson- Raybould has had plenty of time to learn what lies beneath the pleasant image the prime minister works so hard to project. “I am not under any illusion how the prime minister … gets things that he wants,” she tells Wernick in their recorded phone call.

“I am having … thoughts of the Saturday Night Massacre here, Michael,” she confesses, alluding to Richard Nixon’s desperate effort to save himself from Watergate by taking a buzz saw to his justice department. “I am waiting for the … other shoe to drop.”

The shoe dropped a few weeks later, when she was ousted from her job, then resigned to make clear her differences with Trudeau. The prime minister’s version of her departure is that it resulted from an “erosion of trust” of which he was entirely unaware, in spite of the events of the previous three months, the warnings she issued, the stark alert issued to Wernick and the concerns raised by Philpott.

Maybe it’s possible that the prime minister really was caught off guard, that his aides and advisers failed to bring the danger to his attention. But if that’s the case, you have to ask yourself whether a government that could make so many errors in judgment, could miss so many signs of trouble, could press ahead with a bad idea even when one of its senior members is waving her arms and shouting “stop!” — you have to ask yourself whether a government so clumsy, myopic and accident prone has any business running the country.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> The Clerk was pretty adamant he was talking to the Minister of Justice, not the AG.  :stars:



Having listened to the tape, it was pretty clear JWR was speaking as the AG, not the Min Justice. Not sure how he figured otherwise.

As well, as the senior civil servant in Canada, he should have backed off and ended the call the second she warned him off the first time. Yes, it is the role of the civil service to sometimes have uncomfortable conversations with Ministers of the Crown, but he is not her cabinet colleague and she did most certainly not work for him. He should never have acted as messenger boy in this matter.

If the PCO has been this badly corrupted, what else has been corrupted by this government?


----------



## Remius (2 Apr 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> As well, as the senior civil servant in Canada, he should have backed off and ended the call the second she warned him off the first time. Yes, it is the role of the civil service to sometimes have uncomfortable conversations with Ministers of the Crown, but he is not her cabinet colleague and she did most certainly not work for him. He should never have acted as messenger boy in this matter.



The problem is that the Clerk of the Privy Council is three roles in one. 

It was reformed into being not only the Senior Public servant but he is the PMs Deputy minister and the secretary to the cabinet.  So it may well be that he was exactly the person that should have been the message boy in this matter. 

The message though is a different matter.


----------



## ballz (2 Apr 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> The former is a Member of Cabinet, subject to Cabinet Confidence, and expected to reflect the political interests of the caucus.



Right, but Cabinet Confidence was waived on this issue, during this time period. And I was responding to FJAG's comment about whether or not the Clerk constituted a "client" in these circumstances (and therefore subject to Soliciter-Client Privilege).



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Having listened to the tape, it was pretty clear JWR was speaking as the AG, not the Min Justice. Not sure how he figured otherwise.



I would agree. I'm guessing he figured otherwise back when it was convenient for him to do so, as he testified in front of the Justice Committee and JWR was still gagged. I suspect he's changed his mind now as well....

As well, as the senior civil servant in Canada, he should have backed off and ended the call the second she warned him off the first time. Yes, it is the role of the civil service to sometimes have uncomfortable conversations with Ministers of the Crown, but he is not her cabinet colleague and she did most certainly not work for him. He should never have acted as messenger boy in this matter.

If the PCO has been this badly corrupted, what else has been corrupted by this government?
[/quote]

I agree with you, but I'll be honest (and I don't like Wernick... at all), in this instance I'm not overly upset with him. He was doing what he was getting paid to do. As far as I'm concerned, any "threats" from him in his message were simply a reflection of the Prime Minister... or Butts, whoever ran the show because I still can't figure that part out. The more I hear about this, the more the PM reminds me of a General who's rank has gone to head and expects his staff to blatantly violate every piece of policy in existence just because he has an irrational desire to effect something that is outside his job/control, and the poor SOB that is the COS is caught in the middle.


----------



## Cloud Cover (2 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The problem is that the Clerk of the Privy Council is three roles in one.
> 
> It was reformed into being not only the Senior Public servant but he is the PMs Deputy minister and the secretary to the cabinet.  So it may well be that he was exactly the person that should have been the message boy in this matter.
> 
> The message though is a different matter.



I believe part of the reasons those 3 roles were consolidated into 1 was to prevent 3 powerful people from talking past each other.  Now that 1 powerful person claims with some degree of duplicity that those he serves were talking past each other with inaccurate understandings of the issues and lack of knowledge of the legislative intent of a law that they themselves amended for the specific company in the centre of the issue, and in fact at the behest of that very same company. 

To think that an AG would ever employ those "legislative tools" with a nudge and wink to "engineer" the outcome is somewhat of a startling assumption made by a career civil servant in country that supposedly experiences little in the way of federal political and judicial corruption. I'm actually starting to question that notion as well. 

There are too many ex-Supreme Court justices swimming around like sharks in swamp for this matter. There is too much taken for granted as to how those ex-judges might behave in terms of tendering paid advice.  Those judges do not live in a vacuum, their past decisions rule our laws and their opinions and advice in current/future advocacy are going to be accepted with much more weight than perhaps they should be given.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Apr 2019)

I'm just going to skip all of the he said, she said, who's job is what or who initiated, ignored whatever.

This is all taking place because of one fact that is escaping the brouhaha.

The conversation between the two should never have happened in the first place. If it hadn't, we wouldn't be where we are.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Haggis (2 Apr 2019)

JWR was just "removed from the Liberal caucus as the confirmed.... candidate in the 2019 election".


----------



## brihard (2 Apr 2019)

Just breaking now, JWR has been removed from the Liberal caucus. The LPC are ripping off the bandaid. Curious to see what happens with Philpott.

I'll be curious to see what she does now. I think her window for crossing the floor closed a while ago, and particularly with the recording of conversations, she's painted a black mark on herself. But she still has a great deal of credibility, popular support, and political clout in B.C.

BC's next provincial election is October 2021...


----------



## Haggis (2 Apr 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Curious to see what happens with Philpott.


Her conduct was not as overtly unethical and egregious as JWR's.  She'll likely stay.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> I'll be curious to see what she does now.


  Based on FJAG's post of the CBA rules she's alleged to have broken, I think her days as a lawyer are over.  There's also an ever increasing parade of Liberals, many of the lawyers, knifing her for her conduct while still obfuscating the actual content of the recording.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> I think her window for crossing the floor closed a while ago, and particularly with the recording of conversations, she's painted a black mark on herself.



Politically she's untrustworthy now. I doubt any federal party will touch her.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> But she still has a great deal of credibility, popular support, and political clout in B.C.


She may well emerge as an activist/lobbyist for any number of causes that will cause the PM sleepless nights.


----------



## brihard (2 Apr 2019)

Philpott is out too.

JWR may have overplayed her hand with the recording. She has made herself a poison pill. This is still a total goat rodeo for the LPC of course, but the recording gives a relatively easy out for the removal from caucus, and JWR has not done her own future any favours. I'm very curious to see how she in turn plays this.


----------



## Haggis (2 Apr 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Philpott is out too.


  Well, I can't be right 100% of the time.  Just when my wife lets me.



			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> I'm very curious to see how she in turn plays this.


She will be playing defense for the next couple of days.  Then the Liberals will lay off in the hope that she stays quiet.  Time to move on.


----------



## YZT580 (2 Apr 2019)

JWR will become the person sitting opposite the Minister of Indigenous Affairs.  The potential loss of 9000 jobs palls against the potential damage she can cause sitting there.


----------



## Kirkhill (2 Apr 2019)

With YZT on this one.

I expect JWR to negotiating pipelines on behalf of the AFN shortly.  And I am not sure that would be a bad thing. There are deals to be had.


----------



## PuckChaser (2 Apr 2019)

JWR now has nothing to lose.... if the Liberals thought this would make her go away, they probably just underestimated her greatly. Now all those skeletons are going to start coming out of the closet (minus any cabinet confidences).


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Apr 2019)

What is the old saying about the, "Liberals eating their own!" Here we are seeing it in technicolour.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Apr 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I expect JWR to negotiating pipelines on behalf of the AFN  and/or affected First Nations shortly.  And I am not sure that would be a bad thing. There are deals to be had.


A slight add, depending on the pipeline in question.

If she _does_ go down that road (my  :2c::  I'm not convinced she'd go down that road right now), here's the delicious irony:  depending on the pipeline in question, she could end up negotiating with this guy ...





... who happens to be Canada's guy @ the table on the no-pipeline-yet Canada now owns - _and_ one of SNC's learned counsel  ;D


----------



## YZT580 (2 Apr 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> JWR now has nothing to lose.... if the Liberals thought this would make her go away, they probably just underestimated her greatly. Now all those skeletons are going to start coming out of the closet (minus any cabinet confidences).


  Just imagine for a moment.  She is one of those rare people who are exactly what they say they are: in her case she claims to be dedicated to the liberal philosophy and idealism: including honesty and truthfulness, exactly the things that Trudeau claimed in the last election.  Now, having had her idealism shattered by the actions of the PM and the PMO and being thoroughly disgusted with the whole group she has personally declared war on the entire group.  What is the old saying;@nothing so fierce as a woman scorned'.  There is no end too the amount of hurt she is able to inflict.  She could single-handedly cause a re-build of the entire party especially if she has the backing of the first nations.

End of dream.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Apr 2019)

The Liberal Party of Canada: utterly, completely morally and ethically bankrupt.


----------



## Navy_Pete (2 Apr 2019)

> Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd, Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd."  ( from The Mourning Bride  by William Congreve)



I like the original better than 'hell has no fury like...' as the Furies were pretty badass.

Now that she's out of the party, wonder if she will take up the gauntlet thrown by the Liberal MP that suggested she use parliamentary privileged to break cabinet confidence.

The CBC comments on this one are definitely not on the Liberal side either, most cutting one I saw was 'They wanted tokens and got actual leaders with integrity'.  Ouch. They may have wanted to do a bit of research with what a 'truth speaker' meant in her bio.

With Fishbone on this one; you can't call out someone for recording your conversation based on ethics when the whole situation that precipitated the conversation was unethical, and it wouldn't have happened if they had listened to her in September (or October. Or November..) when she said she had reviewed the decision and made up her mind.


----------



## brihard (2 Apr 2019)

Philpott's riding was one of the 'new' ones last election. So far as I can tell from the history of its constituent components, it's definitely up for grabs between CPC and LPC.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Apr 2019)

From Warren Kinsella's twitter feed:


----------



## YZT580 (2 Apr 2019)

Surely they wouldn't be that stupid or arrogant.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The Liberal Party of Canada: utterly, completely morally and ethically bankrupt.



Never thought I'd enjoy watching the Liberals in action. I'm quite happy how they've handled everything so far. I was a bit worried they wouldn't fire JWR but they pulled though again.


----------



## Haggis (3 Apr 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Surely they wouldn't be that stupid or arrogant.



Oh, you underestimate the Liberal Party of Canada.   The DPA is coming, along with a bunch of other back-burner items.  There will be a last minute flurry of activity to cement the PMs agenda before the writ is dropped.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Never thought I'd enjoy watching the Liberals in action. I'm quite happy how they've handled everything so far. I was a bit worried they wouldn't fire JWR but they pulled though again.


Never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity these guys, right?  ;D

Meanwhile, on Sheila Copps' Twitter feed ...


----------



## FSTO (3 Apr 2019)

The Liberals must protect the leader at all costs! Doesn’t that sound a little creepy? Certainly does to me!


----------



## OldSolduer (3 Apr 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Liberals must protect the leader at all costs! Doesn’t that sound a little creepy? Certainly does to me!



Trotting out the likes of Sheila Copps  -who hasn’t been relevant in politics in years and in my opinion a “has been” - seems to me to be a desperate act. This is the worst GoC I’ve ever seen.


----------



## FSTO (3 Apr 2019)

I listened to the PM’s speech last night on a podcast (cannot stand the sight of him speaking). It’s all about him, it’s always been about him because right now he is the LPC and the thought of anybody else (conservative, NDP , or Green) having access to the levers of power in Canada is something that he and the trained seals in caucus cannot conceive of. No wonder he is an admirer of China.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> The Liberals must protect the leader at all costs! Doesn’t that sound a little creepy? Certainly does to me!



The Liberals are behaving like an abusive controlling husband who lied and cheated on his wife, who is freaking out because the wife read his text messages. How dare she betray his trust like that!

Sheila Copps is one of the mistresses who's lecturing the wife on morales and being obedient.

I never realyl paid attention or noticed Copps before but damn she's nasty.


----------



## YZT580 (3 Apr 2019)

The Rat Pack comes out of hibernation


----------



## Remius (3 Apr 2019)

To be honest, her (their) expulsion looks to be caucus driven at this point.  

So they likely gave him a reason and Trudeau is going to be the face of it for sure but I think the caucus had finally had enough of the damage that they probably feel that they are better off without them than with them.  

Someone here said she overplayed her hand.  I agree with that.  

Not disputing the fact that what the PMO and SNC Lavalin is all worse.  But I think that JWRs political aspirations are over regardless of where she tries to land. 

Now...I don't think that JT is going to be able to sell any of this to the Canadian Public.  My guess is that the only way he can win next election is that if the opposition makes itself look like a worse option that the LPC.


----------



## Haggis (3 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Now...I don't think that JT is going to be able to sell any of this to the Canadian Public.


  The issuance of the DPA will be sold as proof that JWR was wrong and the PM was right.  This may recuperate lost support in Québec.  Will it be enough to push the polls back into Liberal majority territory is anyone's guess.



			
				Remius said:
			
		

> My guess is that the only way he can win next election is that if the opposition makes itself look like a worse option that the LPC.


 The government representative in the Senate has proposed a schedule to see 11 Bills voted on before the house rises.  If successful, the Liberals will be able to say "look how much we've accomplished despite the Opposition's efforts to stop us!"


----------



## Cloud Cover (3 Apr 2019)

Listening to Minister Champagne: the DPA is on the table if not actually imminent.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (3 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> To be honest, her (their) expulsion looks to be caucus driven at this point.
> 
> So they likely gave him a reason and Trudeau is going to be the face of it for sure but I think the caucus had finally had enough of the damage that they probably feel that they are better off without them than with them.
> 
> ...



She definitely has a future in BC politics and in FN politics. It be interesting if JT has to face her as the head of the AFN.


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Apr 2019)

I will repeat myself: The LPC does what's best for the LPC, not what's best for Canada. I cringe, absolutely cringe, every time Trudeau says  "Canadians". He actually means what he and Liberals think is the natural governing party.

From the article: ...." there is only one principle — blind loyalty to the leader.... " and " ...unwilling to sacrifice her principles so readily on the altar of partisanship.... ". Sounds like what was said during the Nuremberg Trials - http://Superior:  Superior orders, often known as the Nuremberg defense, lawful orders or by the German phrase Befehl ist Befehl ("an order is an order"), is a plea in a court of law that a person—whether a member of the military, law enforcement, a firefighting force, or the civilian population—not be held guilty for actions ordered by a superior officer or an official.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-liberals-accomplish-nothing-but-vindictiveness-for-vindictivenesss-sake

*
The rotting of the Liberal soul*National Post - 3 Apr 19 - Andrew Coyne - 
      _This is pure vindictiveness_

“Ultimately the choice that is before you,” Jody Wilson- Raybould pleaded with her caucus colleagues, in a letter written hours before they were to pass sentence on her, “is about what kind of party you want to be a part of, what values it will uphold, the vision that animates it, and indeed the type of people it will attract and make it up.” But they made that choice long ago. They knew what kind of party they wanted to be a part of from the moment they accepted their nominations; indeed, were they not the type of person that party attracts they would not have been recruited for it. It is the kind of party, and person, that unquestioningly puts loyalty to party before principle — and mercilessly punishes those who do not.

So on the question of whether to expel the former minister of justice and attorney general — along with the former Treasury Board president, Jane Philpott — for the crime of denouncing the attempt, by the prime minister and senior government officials, to interfere with a criminal prosecution, there could have been little doubt how they would vote. Whether they chose to shoot the messengers so spontaneously, over Justin Trudeau’s objections, as some reports have claimed — they were “determined to take the matter into their own hands,” according to a Canadian Press story, as if MPS were so eager to prove their obedience to the leader as to be willing to defy him — or whether they did so under orders doesn’t much matter. The rotting of the soul is the same either way.

We can now see, if it were not already apparent, the moral compass by which the prime minister and his caucus steer. The scandal in the Snc-lavalin affair is, by this reckoning, not the monthslong campaign to subvert the independence of the attorney general and, through her, to force the independent director of public prosecutions to drop charges of fraud and corruption against a longtime Liberal party contributor, but the opposition to it.

Traditional political theory teaches that the executive branch of government is responsible to the legislative. It is now clearer than ever that the reverse more nearly applies: members of the Liberal caucus plainly see it as their role, not to hold the government to account, but rather their fellow MPS — on behalf of the government. When wrongdoing by those high in government is alleged by a pair of whistleblowers, their first thought is to root out the whistleblowers. Even when presented with incontrovertible evidence, in the form of an audio recording, that the clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick, threatened the former attorney general with dismissal if she did not bend to the PM’S will, and that she repeatedly and explicitly protested against this “political interference” — on both points contrary to his testimony before a parliamentary committee — the prime minister and his camp followers profess themselves outraged, not at what the tape reveals, but that it exists.

No such outrage attended the release of a near- verbatim transcript of a later conversation between the former attorney general and the prime minister, based on notes taken by a person who was not even ( so far as she was aware) privy to the call: the prime minister’s former principal secretary, Gerald Butts. Why is a surreptitiously obtained transcript (which confirms, not confounds, her testimony) acceptable, while a surreptitiously obtained tape is not? The objection would appear to be that the latter is more accurate.

So the charge is a pretext. What has agitated Liberal MPS is not the former attorney general’s recording of a conversation she correctly anticipated would be improper and could have guessed would be denied, or her failure to alert the prime minister at whose behest it had taken place ( and who could not fail to have been informed of its contents), but rather that she has contradicted and embarrassed the leader. Or rather no: I suspect what truly outrages them is the sight of a person of conscience, unwilling to sacrifice her principles so readily on the altar of partisanship. For those who can still remember what that was like, it must be deeply shaming. For the rest, there is only one principle — blind loyalty to the leader — in which cause they are prepared to sacrifice any number of colleagues.

We should understand, not only how noxious this is, but how unusual. Only in Canada can you be kicked out of the party for disobeying the leader — because only in Canada has the party been so wholly subsumed by the leader, to the point that it exists more or less as an extension of his persona. The prime minister of Great Britain has suffered multiple coup attempts, without any such purges. Because in Britain it is understood that the leader serves the party, rather than the other way around.

Yet it is exactly that sort of leader- dominated, centralized politics that created this mess. Only a leader who was effectively accountable to no one could have so lost sight of the relevant ethical boundaries as to attempt to shut down a prosecution — for any reason, let alone the nakedly partisan purposes alleged. Only a leader surrounded by sycophants could have imagined that the past seven weeks of denial, deflection and smears could succeed in rescuing his reputation.

Or perhaps that is not the point. It is often said that the coverup is worse than the crime. Worse than a coverup, however, is the kind of open attempt to confuse the issue we have been witnessing. Since his initial, lawyerly non- denial, the prime minister has not much bothered to pretend he did not do what he is accused of — he merely insists there was nothing wrong with it. The object: to corrupt, not just the administration of justice, but our collective sense of right and wrong.

Still, it’s hard to see what is accomplished by this latest bout of thuggery — not only expelling Wilson- Raybould and Philpott, but revoking their nominations. It seems to be motivated by little more than sheer delight in retribution: vindictiveness for vindictiveness’s sake. And yet they are not one whit diminished by it; only the prime minister is.

- mod edit to add/fix article link -


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Apr 2019)

How palatable will a DPA be with this revelation?
*
SNC-Lavalin insider's bribery allegations spark probe by Crown agency that loaned the firm billions*

Export Development Canada has hired outside legal counsel to review some of its dealings with SNC-Lavalin. The review comes after a company insider told CBC News the engineering giant secured billions in loans from the Crown agency over the years, some of which he alleges was intended to pay bribes.

CBC Link


----------



## Fishbone Jones (3 Apr 2019)

I saw this type of fiasco/scenario coming before the election. Back then, I was an outlier. Liars and thieves I said. I got, horrible little man you are, in return. A terrible person for treating liberals as I did/do. I tied them early on to big corporations, shady deals and outright ignorant arrogance. Ridicule followed.  :Tin-Foil-Hat:

I am completely ambivalent at these goings on now, dispassionate, so to speak. This was no surprise and it was fullyexpected. The exact scenario may not have been forecast, but the illegalities, smug indifference and ethics violations were writ large from the beginning for anyone that wanted to take anything other than a passing glance or ignored the MSM propaganda machine.

Canadians are still not passionate enough to rid ourselves of these carpetbaggers. Someone else will do it. Bitch and complain while walking around like baboons in heat displaying for the liberals government to take advantage. 

I feel vindicated.  ;D


----------



## MilEME09 (3 Apr 2019)

This whole thing makes me feel like mamy roles in government must be seperated out, AG should be appointed, not by the PM but by a 2/3 majority of the justice committee. The govoner general should also be less of a formality and more an effective executive branch. While in theory she could call an election right not the GG is more at the beck and call of the PM. A full public inquiry into the dealings of the LPC are also in order.


----------



## Lumber (3 Apr 2019)

I still don't know that I wouldn't rather have these "carpetbaggers" in power over Sheer's CPC, or... those other guys.

Maybe that's why I would've voted Clinton. :dunno:

I look forward to the CPC putting forth some form of actual platform. Maybe I'll vote Green this year... :vomit:


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2019)

*
Trudeau, Scheer shunned as some Daughters of the Vote attendees turn backs, walk out on speeches* 

https://globalnews.ca/news/5126284/justin-trudeau-feminist-daughters-of-the-vote/



Headline says Trudeau and Scheer shunned but the body of the story suggests it was just Trudeau. 
Innocent mistake I'm sure eh? 




> Trudeau was the last of the leaders to speak following first Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh and Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer. As he did, dozens of the delegates rose and turned their backs to him.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> *Headline says Trudeau and Scheer shunned but the body of the story suggests it was just Trudeau. *


*
Except for this bit of the story  ...



			... In contrast, several of the delegates walked out of a speech by Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer ...
		
Click to expand...

*


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Except for this bit of the story  ...



Ah, thanks! Looks like the innocent mistake is mne lol

Does the delegates mean the young girls walked on on Scheer too or was that other politicians that walked out?


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Ah, thanks! Looks like the innocent mistake is mne lol


Hey, wouldn't have been the first headline that doesn't match the story, given different people _usually_ do the writing of each.



			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Does the delegates mean the young girls walked on on Scheer too or was that other politicians that walked out?


I read it as the girls leaving.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2019)

Why would they walk out on Scheer?


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Apr 2019)

Pee break. They always go in a pack.


----------



## YZT580 (3 Apr 2019)

He continued, adding that “there is never going to be an absolute one side or another. There are always going to be multiple voices.”  This is Trudeau's failing.  There is only one 'truth' never multiples thereof.  That is why courts decide guilty or innocent.   And I don't believe that he is capable of understanding let alone speaking to the notion of being truthful


----------



## Lumber (3 Apr 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> He continued, adding that “there is never going to be an absolute one side or another. There are always going to be multiple voices.”  This is Trudeau's failing.  There is only one 'truth' never multiples thereof.  That is why courts decide guilty or innocent.   And I don't believe that he is capable of understanding let alone speaking to the notion of being truthful



Disagree... from a political standpoint.

I'm pro social liberalism but also pro economic conservatism. Unfortunately, out of our two main parties, one is both economically and socially conservative, and the other is both economically and socially liberal. Ok thats a gross generalization, but my point is this. There are a lot of people who think like me in Canada, and we have to decide between the two. Some people will decide that social justice is more important (i.e. it is the "truth") and choose the socially liberal party, while others will see economic prosperity as more important (i.e. the truth) and chose the fiscally responsible party. 

To me, that's what Trudeau means by multiple truths. I mean, they're all liars anyway, why get mixed up with the semantics? 

The key point is, there is no perfect party, and all of us have to make compromises when we vote. You don't have the right to tell me or anyone what my particular priorities are, and therefore, the truth behind my vote is just as valid as the truth behind yours.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (3 Apr 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Pee break. They always go in a pack.



No misogyny there


----------



## PuckChaser (3 Apr 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> No misogyny there



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/misogyny

Beside the fact that there's no hatred indicated in the post, only an attempt at a humorous life observation, I didn't know Milnet.ca needed a GBA+/Harassment advisor. Do you need another job title for PER points next year or something?


----------



## Rifleman62 (3 Apr 2019)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> No misogyny there



With a wife of 50 years (She who must be obeyed), 2 daughters, 3 grand daughters, no none, 





> and (based on probabilities certainties) am likely _Senior_ to you


(CRA in 2007), 





> and I do not feel compelled in the slightest


to atone to you.


----------



## Jarnhamar (3 Apr 2019)

_Public interest_ is the first thing that comes to my mind when I think Liberals  :nod:


*Justice department memo says Ottawa has wiggle room to allow SNC-Lavalin to bid on federal contracts even if convicted*
OTTAWA—The Liberal government could invoke a “public interest” exception that would allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid a 10-year federal contract ban even if it is criminally convicted, according to a justice department memo.

Yet the justice department advice, which had been requested by the Privy Council Office (PCO) but never delivered, says the reasons to grant such an exemption are “narrow.”

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/04/03/justice-department-memo-says-ottawa-has-wiggle-room-to-allow-snc-lavalin-to-bid-on-federal-contracts-even-if-convicted.html


----------



## mariomike (3 Apr 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> The key point is, there is no perfect party,



There is no Liberal or Conservative way to fix a sewer.  



			
				Lumber said:
			
		

> You don't have the right to tell me or anyone what my particular priorities are, and therefore, the truth behind my vote is just as valid as the truth behind yours.



Until I retired on my 55th birthday, my particular priorities were fair compensation, benefits, pension, staffing and equipment, decent working conditions etc.

Our union had a simple, non-partisan philosophy when endorsing candidates – We supported politicians who supported us. 

At the same time, the union respected the right of every member to vote for the candidate(s) of their choice. 

No one, including the union, had the right to tell you how to vote.


----------



## YZT580 (3 Apr 2019)

Lumber, glad you added 'from a political' to your statement.  Unfortunately for Trudeau this is not a political issue instead this is an issue where true truth was required and he blew it and has shown that he doesn't give a damn that he did, in fact his attitude indicates that he is totally p****d that the press, whom he thought he had bought, has seen fit to draw attention to his misconduct.  He has no (evident) moral conscience  about either lying or attempting to circumvent the law, demonstrating his contempt for parliament and for the justice system.  He is totally amoral and totally unfit to lead.  *Tell me, would the services tolerate an officer who had been caught out in this fashion?*


----------



## Navy_Pete (3 Apr 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Lumber, glad you added 'from a political' to your statement.  Unfortunately for Trudeau this is not a political issue instead this is an issue where true truth was required and he blew it and has shown that he doesn't give a damn that he did, in fact his attitude indicates that he is totally p****d that the press, whom he thought he had bought, has seen fit to draw attention to his misconduct.  He has no (evident) moral conscience  about either lying or attempting to circumvent the law, demonstrating his contempt for parliament and for the justice system.  He is totally amoral and totally unfit to lead.  *Tell me, would the services tolerate an officer who had been caught out in this fashion?*



Why simply tolerate when you can promote them?


----------



## Remius (4 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Why would they walk out on Scheer?



I listened to sound bites from some of these young women on the radio this morning.  There was lot about oppression for women and especially women of colour and not conforming to the image of white men in politics or something like that.  

That is your answer.  Those that walked out or turned around would have done so to any white man talking about women in politics.


----------



## Jarnhamar (4 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I listened to sound bites from some of these young women on the radio this morning.  There was lot about oppression for women and especially women of colour and not conforming to the image of white men in politics or something like that.
> 
> That is your answer.  Those that walked out or turned around would have done so to any white man talking about women in politics.



Thanks Remius. That takes some of the wind out of my LOL@Trudeau sails since it sounds like they planned to walk our irregardless.


----------



## Remius (4 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Thanks Remius. That takes some of the wind out of my LOL@Trudeau sails since it sounds like they planned to walk our irregardless.



But it still had an impact when you think about it.  Trudeau is supposed to have been a champion and ally for women.  Regardless of what their motivations were, I still think that there is a full gust blowing in those sails Jarnhammer.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Apr 2019)

Keep in mind the next generation of voters will not have the same brand loyalty previous generation had. How individuals perform will have a great effect. JT has irrevocably damaged his brand with younger voters and at an age where he could have had a long career. JWR comes out of this with a solid brand with the same set of voters and she is young enough to exploit that. Eventually we may see a move towards an Australian model, where the PM serves at the pleasure of their MP's.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Apr 2019)

This whole "white men" thing is getting boring.


----------



## Remius (4 Apr 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> This whole "white men" thing is getting boring.



Boring isn't the word I would use.  But it is getting old and tedious.  Tiresome? Annoying?


----------



## FJAG (5 Apr 2019)

An absolutely excellent article by Paul Wells at McLeans:



> POLITICS
> In the abandoned ruins of Ottawa
> Paul Wells: How did the SNC-Lavalin scandal manage to rattle this government so badly? Because it reveals some truths to Canadians about this Prime Minister.
> by Paul Wells Apr 4, 2019
> ...



Read the rest here:

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/in-the-abandoned-ruins-of-ottawa/

 :cheers:


----------



## FSTO (5 Apr 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> An absolutely excellent article by Paul Wells at McLeans:
> 
> Read the rest here:
> 
> ...



I'd hate to see how this team would react to a real crisis like an Ice Storm in the St Lawrence/Ottawa River valleys, Floods in Manitoba or an Earthquake on the West Coast.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2019)

Easy. Blame Harper. Blame Global Warming. Blame toxic masculinity. Then hire SNC to coordinate the clean up.


----------



## Remius (5 Apr 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> An absolutely excellent article by Paul Wells at McLeans:
> 
> Read the rest here:
> 
> ...



Good article.  Thanks.

Sums up my conundrum in the coming election.  Like Wells, my mind isn't made up yet.


----------



## Remius (5 Apr 2019)

FSTO said:
			
		

> I'd hate to see how this team would react to a real crisis like an Ice Storm in the St Lawrence/Ottawa River valleys, Floods in Manitoba or an Earthquake on the West Coast.



Meh, all they have to do is just say go and the system takes over.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Apr 2019)

Another good one from Macleans: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-did-jody-wilson-raybould-have-to-go-because-white-nationalists/


----------



## FJAG (5 Apr 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Another good one from Macleans: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/why-did-jody-wilson-raybould-have-to-go-because-white-nationalists/



Yes, indeed.

 :cheers:


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Apr 2019)

There's about to be a shortage of  op:

Scheer says PM's lawyer threatened him with libel suit over SNC-Lavalin affair

 OTTAWA -- Andrew Scheer is challenging Justin Trudeau to follow through on a threat to sue him over his assertion that the prime minister politically interfered with the criminal prosecution of Montreal engineering giant SNC-Lavlin.

The Conservative leader revealed Sunday that he received a letter on March 31 from Trudeau's lawyer, Julian Porter, threatening a libel suit.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Apr 2019)

Team Trudeau would have expected Team Scheer to immediately run to the media to tell them about the libel suit which begs the question what's the Liberals true intention behind this move.


----------



## Jed (7 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Team Trudeau would have expected Team Scheer to immediately run to the media to tell them about the libel suit which begs the question what's the Liberals true intention behind this move.


.  Who can say what the next Liberal move will be? They are acting so irrationally lately, that they are so much smarter than the Conservatives or they are totally out in left field.


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Apr 2019)

They are just baiting each other. Frig all of them, drama queens, every one of them.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Apr 2019)

This is madness on the part of the Liberal Party? PMO?

Being sued is a gift for the Conservatives. You cannot buy that kind of publicity, as a political party.

Lets say for a second this was not an idle threat. What happens when the Conservative Party lawyers begin discovery and truckloads of documents get requested and everyone in Cabinet is named as a witness.

The Liberals may be calculating that nothing can happen in court until after the election (after which they will quietly drop the whole thing), but the Conservatives have way deeper pockets and as the "victims" probably have way better fund raising potential.This can potentially bankrupt the Liberals in lawyer fees alone, right as an election occurs.

Unless, as Jarnhamar has pointed out, this is a diversion from something way worse the Liberals don't want anyone to see.


----------



## Cloud Cover (7 Apr 2019)

The discovery process for a libel suit need not be as complex as other forms of civil lawsuits. The process is designed to be somewhat expeditious. That being said....

"…An individual’s reputation is not to be treated as regrettable but unavoidable road kill on the highway of public controversy, but nor should an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation be permitted to “chill” freewheeling debate on matters of public interest…"

In addition to the public interest defence available to the leader of the opposition, there is also the defence of honest belief, and I'm not sure that they could be so successful on that one:

"Honest belief”, of course, requires the existence of a nexus or relationship between the comment and the underlying facts .... “could any man honestly express that opinion on the proved facts”

Further:

"...The test is not whether the words impute negative qualities to the plaintiff, but whether, in the factual circumstances of the case, the public would think less of the plaintiff as a result of the comment.  Relevant factors to be considered in assessing whether a statement is defamatory include: whether the impugned speech is a statement of opinion rather than of fact; how much is publicly known about the plaintiff; the nature of the audience; and the context of the comment. "

The context here is, of course, politics alleging a criminal act by the Prime Minister and characterizing it _de facto_ rather than opinion.  Not a wise move....


----------



## YZT580 (7 Apr 2019)

I tend to agree with SeaKing in that this is madness.  The entire issue would have died a natural death from lack of new materiel in about 2 weeks.  It would have gone from page 1 above the fold to the Life section and then disappeared.  This law suit stuff simply ensured that it remains front burner.  If the facts that have been proven are all there is to the story all Justin simply had to wait.  That he didn't says more about his immaturity and less about some possible nefarious liberal plot.  It is more likely that he simply has his mouth on automatic, you know, make statement then engage brain.  My  :2c:


----------



## Kirkhill (7 Apr 2019)

Don't forget the ongoing Norman prosecution.

The PCO/PMO/SNC case has left an awful lot of loose threads lying around for Ms Henein and her associates to tug on.


----------



## YZT580 (8 Apr 2019)

All the more reason to keep his mouth shut.  What is the old saying 'Better to keep your mouth closed and have people think you are Stupid/ guilty than to open it up and prove it beyond all doubt.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Apr 2019)

Can't talk about it if the matter is before the courts, right?

This lawsuit is pocket change to trudeau. Cheap as hell if he can make Scheer shutup.

Mind, that only stops Scheer outside the House.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Apr 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The discovery process for a libel suit need not be as complex as other forms of civil lawsuits. The process is designed to be somewhat expeditious. That being said....
> 
> "…An individual’s reputation is not to be treated as regrettable but unavoidable road kill on the highway of public controversy, but nor should an overly solicitous regard for personal reputation be permitted to “chill” freewheeling debate on matters of public interest…"
> 
> ...



The largest libel award in Canadian history was $1.1 million. Even if the Sheer loses (not a certainty), his lawyer gets to drag the entire Liberal Party through the mud, for the entire run up to the october election. And the best Trudeau will be able manage? "Can't talk about it- it is before courts". Even if Trudeau wins- it it really isn't a win because it just confirms the impression that he is both petty and thin-skinned.

The best part? None of this gets counted as election spending and I am betting that Scheer has no trouble raising money to cover his legal bills. As I said earlier, this is a massive boon to the Conservatives and dumb politics for the Liberals. This all but guarantees that SNC Lavalin stays alive all summer, as an issue.


----------



## ballz (8 Apr 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> there is also the defence of honest belief, and I'm not sure that they could be so successful on that one:
> 
> "Honest belief”, of course, requires the existence of a nexus or relationship between the comment and the underlying facts .... “could any man honestly express that opinion on the proved facts”



Based on the facts available, there seems to be an awful lot of people in Canada who will and have expressed the same opinion, so I'm not sure how this one is a stretch... I would be happy to testify under oath that, based on the evidence available, I have honestly concluded that JT is corrupt, lied to Canadians, and attempted to politically interfere in a criminal case.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Apr 2019)

Anyway, do you really think Trudeau will tell the *whole* truth under oath at a trial?  Will it be *his* truth, the truth as he *envisages* it, the truth as he* conjures up*, the truth of a Liberal, and so on.

I expect zero truth.


----------



## Haggis (8 Apr 2019)

The way I understand it so far, the suit would be by Trudeau _personally_ against Scheer _personally_ for comments Scheer made on social media and outside the house where he is not protected by Parliamentary privilege. It is, quite obviously, a SLAPP suit aimed at muzzling Scheer outside of the house  and in front of the media. I would expect similar threats to be made against others such as Bergen, Rempel and Polivere.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Apr 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> The way I understand it so far, the suit would be by Trudeau _personally_ against Scheer _personally_ for comments Scheer made on social media and outside the house where he is not protected by Parliamentary privilege. It is, quite obviously, a SLAPP suit aimed at muzzling Scheer outside of the house  and in front of the media. I would expect similar threats to be made against others such as Bergen, Rempel and Polivere.



I get that, but think of the optics, particularly in an election year. Trudeau, with his personal fortune up in the millions is going after (essentially) a middle class man with an opinion (Scheer). 

It may not directly involve the Liberal and Conservative Parties, but who do think comes out of this looking like an underdog and who comes out looking desperate, petty and entitled, regardless of the legal outcome? Plus, this stays in the news cycle. I still contend that Scheer can go on the BBQ circuit this summer and easily fund raise his legal fees. Even people who would not normally vote Conservative probably would contribute to a Scheer legal defence fund, just to see Trudeau hammered for trying to silence the leader of the Opposition.

This is another disaster in the making for the Liberals.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Apr 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I get that, but think of the optics, particularly in an election year. Trudeau, with his personal fortune up in the millions is going after (essentially) a middle class man with an opinion (Scheer).
> 
> It may not directly involve the Liberal and Conservative Parties, but who do think comes out of this looking like an underdog and who comes out looking desperate, petty and entitled, regardless of the legal outcome? Plus, this stays in the news cycle. I still contend that Scheer can go on the BBQ circuit this summer and easily fund raise his legal fees. Even people who would not normally vote Conservative probably would contribute to a Scheer legal defence fund, just to see Trudeau hammered for trying to silence the leader of the Opposition.
> 
> This is another disaster in the making for the Liberals.



Exactly. This seems like an amateur move and really too good to be true. I still think we have to be missing something.

I can't imagine Butts approving of this when him and Trudeau do their nightly facetime chats.


----------



## Cloud Cover (8 Apr 2019)

To be clear, I think that Trudeau would not succeed as Scheer could avail himself of the public interest defence. With respect to "honest belief", in general the facts have to be proven before the libellous statements  are made, not after the libel suit commences. A person cannot wander about accusing people of having committed crimes, and then demand evidence to prove it after they've been served with a libel suit.  That being said, there is obviously plenty of evidence, but whether it's proof - well just ask Jean Chretien- "a proof is a proof when I say it is".  And he got away with it, FFS.


The total aggregate damages for _Hill_ were about 1.6 million including 800K in punitive damages, plus costs. There were (i think) 2 defendants.  This case with Trudeau does not come anywhere near the level of defamation that occurred in _Hill_, where the plaintiff was actually a prosecutor. Here, Trudeau is, at least perceptually, a conspirator.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> ... who do think comes out of this looking like an underdog and who comes out looking desperate, petty and entitled, regardless of the legal outcome? Plus, this stays in the news cycle. I still contend that Scheer can go on the BBQ circuit this summer and easily fund raise his legal fees ...


 :nod:


			
				Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Exactly. This seems like an amateur move and really too good to be true. I still think we have to be missing something.


Sometimes a dumb move is just a dumb move -- like the French guy reportedly said ...


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2019)

Can I get a bit more clarification on something a bit more fundamental?

The business of the independence of the prosecutors?

Isn't it the case that we can "afford" to give the prosecutors, employees of the state, the freedom to prosecute who they like because prosecution is not the same as conviction?

My sense is that in the same context that anyone can enter into a dispute with anyone and then have that dispute resolved by a "disinterested" third party, the courts, then the state, as represented by the prosecutor, can enter into dispute with anyone and, likewise, take it to the courts for adjudication.  The courts then test the arguments and decide if the prosecutor can make the case and demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the person is sufficiently guilty to warrant a sanction.

As people subject to the jurisdiction of the Canadian courts my understanding of my protections are as follows:

The discretion of my neighbours to lay a complaint
The discretion of the police to arrest
The discretion of the prosecutor to charge
The discretion of the court to hear the case
The discretion of the judge and or jury to convict
The discretion of the judge to sentence
My discretion to appeal to superior courts
The discretion of the appellate courts to hear the case
The discretion of the appellate courts to uphold the conviction
The discretion of the appellate courts to uphold the sentence
My discretion to appeal to the Crown as represented by the Queen in Council, the government of the day
The discretion of the government of the day to uphold the findings of the courts.

That is an awful lot of people making judgments with little guarantee that all the people exercising their discretion will agree on an outcome.  That puts a load onto many people but in particular it puts a load on the prosecutor because he or she is committing the reputation and budget of the state to a process that could severely injure both in the event of a failed prosecution - and failure is a real possibility.

With that background in mind - two thoughts.

One - the government has ample opportunity, at the end of the process, to assist its friends - if it chooses to do so - in the cold light of day - and if it is willing to put its decision to the discretion of the electorate at the next election.

Two - any organization willing to spend millions, and go to the extent of getting laws changed and risk the perception of corruption,  to keep its case out of the courts must be fairly sure that the prosecutors have a case that the courts will ultimately accept and that will result in sanctions.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Apr 2019)

https://blackrod.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-unreported-bombshell-conspiracy.html
*
The unreported bombshell conspiracy evidence in the Trudeau/SNC-Lavelin scandal*

Extract:

Which brings us to the ticking-timebomb-evidence the committee and the public didn't get to hear. In between the appearances by Butts and Warnick, Wilson-Raybould testified to getting a report from her chief of staff who had had a meeting with Butts and Trudeau's chief of staff Katie Telford. They aggressively pushed the attorney general to get an "outside" opinion from someone like the retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Beverley McLachlin, on dropping the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin in favour of a non-criminal plea deal. 

Wilson-Raybould took contemporary notes of what her staff member told her. "My COS (chief of staff...ed) asked what if the opinion comes saying "She can review it, but she shouldn't" or simply "She can't review it" end of story?  Mr. Butts stated "It wouldn't say that."

BOOM!!!!!!

Read what Butts said again.  And again. And again. "IT WOULDN'T SAY THAT"

The implication of that statement screams out at you: The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Beverley McLachlin was in on it.  She was part of the conspiracy to interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin! It's obvious that the Trudeau conspirators wouldn't be suggesting an outside opinion without knowing in advance what that opinion would be.  They went to McLachlin, she said she would give the opinion they wanted, and all they needed was to convince the attorney general to get off her high horse and listen to her superior legal mind.

But the implications of this are immense. What other approaches did the Liberals make to McLachlin -- when she was still on the bench? How close is their relationship? What other cases might she have welcomed interference in?  Did McLachlin talk with former Former Supreme Court of Canada judge Frank Iacobucci, who is one of the lawyers on SNC-Lavalin’s defence team, before arriving at her opinion? Was she going to tell the attorney general that?

The involvement of a former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in the conspiracy to interfere in a criminal prosecution demands a full public inquiry into the Trudeau/SNC-Lavalin scandal.


----------



## Jarnhamar (8 Apr 2019)

> * Nadon Incident (2014)*
> 
> In July 2013, during the consultation period prior to appointment for Marc Nadon, * Chief Justice McLachlin contacted justice minister Peter MacKay and the Prime Minister's Officeregarding the eligibility of Marc Nadon for a Quebec seat on the Supreme Court. Prime Minister Stephen Harper stated that he had refused a phone call from McLachlin on the Attorney General's advice. * Harper's comments were criticized by the legal community and a complaint was forwarded to the International Commission of Jurists in Switzerland.The International Commission of Jurists concluded that Beverly McLachlin deserved an apology from Harper, but none had been given as of July 2014.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Apr 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> https://blackrod.blogspot.com/2019/04/the-unreported-bombshell-conspiracy.html
> *
> The unreported bombshell conspiracy evidence in the Trudeau/SNC-Lavelin scandal*
> 
> ...



It's hard to categorically conclude that Justice McLachlin was in on it. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here. She's likely smart enough to not get roped into something like this. What we can conclude is that team Trudeau felt sure enough of her support that they were willing to situate the estimate. Still, this continues to solidify the issue regarding the PMO's involvement, and desire for a DPA as the only acceptable end state.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Apr 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's hard to categorically conclude that Justice McLachlin was in on it. I'm willing to give her the benefit of the doubt here. She's likely smart enough to not get roped into something like this. What we can conclude is that team Trudeau felt sure enough of her support that they were willing to situate the estimate. Still, this continues to solidify the issue regarding the PMO's involvement, and desire for a DPA as the only acceptable end state.



If only there existed an occupation whose role it was to investigate such explosive claims and then report back to the general public with their results....

Ah, well. Guess we will never know, one way or another... :


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Apr 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If only there existed an occupation whose role it was to investigate such explosive claims and then report back to the general public with their results....


... or a government committee of some sort dealing with things to do with justice?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Apr 2019)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If only there existed an occupation whose role it was to investigate such explosive claims and then report back to the general public with their results....
> 
> Ah, well. Guess we will never know, one way or another... :



You mean law enforcement? People are starting to think that's also a dead end. Every day I see more and more on social media where people are saying his appointed female RCMP commissioner is in his pocket and that you won't see the RCMP get involved with investigating this government. Plus, given his penchant for doing what he wants and bullying people, might not be far off. I'm certainly not very impressed that it hasn't even been looked at. There are a number of people that have asked the RCMP to investigate, through formal legal requests. Every complaint appears to have been denied, according to those that requested them.

Now, police don't report on ongoing investigations, nor do they necessarily announce an investigation. Given this government though, you'd never, ever keep that under wraps, it'd end up leaked and someone in the press would be trying for a Pulitzer.

The complete silence of the RCMP on these matters only leads to more gas on the fire of their public persona. Not only is he ruining his own legacy and that of his party, but the stink is starting to waft into other departments of this government, like the RCMP, Veterans Affairs and RevCan, and is ruining their legacy also.

I'm not even sure who's job investigating crime in government would fall to. I would assume some sort of special branch though.

No hard evidence, just what I've been reading.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> You mean law enforcement? People are starting to think that's also a dead end. Every day I see more and more on social media where people are saying his appointed female RCMP commissioner is in his pocket and that you won't see the RCMP get involved with investigating this government. Plus, given his penchant for doing what he wants and bullying people, might not be far off. I'm certainly not very impressed that it hasn't even been looked at. There are a number of people that have asked the RCMP to investigate, through formal legal requests. Every complaint appears to have been denied, according to those that requested them.
> 
> Now, police don't report on ongoing investigations, nor do they necessarily announce an investigation. Given this government though, you'd never, ever keep that under wraps, it'd end up leaked and someone in the press would be trying for a Pulitzer.
> 
> ...



Fishbone, I think what they are suggesting, is that if we had a functioning parliament then the Justice Committee and/or the Ethics Committee would be doing their jobs.  But they aren't for the same reason we don't have a coherent defence and security policy.  Our parliament is an extension of our government - not its counterweight.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Apr 2019)

Thanks Chris, got it. I'm just wishing for anyone with some balls and authority to say, "We start taking witness statements on Monday. Any interference into this investigation, by parties involved will result in further investigation and possible charges."

I envision Diogenes wandering around Ottawa carrying a lamp and searching for an honest man.

I fear his quest may be futile and he'll be arrested for adding to the carbon footprint with his burning oil.


----------



## Haggis (9 Apr 2019)

Because today is a new day, here's the latest development in this reality TV show that is causing me to lose track of The Doinald. According to this article from April 3, there was no vote taken prior to the PM's announcement of their expulsion, just 'conversations" with the caucus chairs.


----------



## ballz (9 Apr 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> Because today is a new day, here's the latest development in this reality TV show that is causing me to lose track of The Doinald. According to this article from April 3, there was no vote taken prior to the PM's announcement of their expulsion, just 'conversations" with the caucus chairs.



Fake news... as per the LPC representative states, "we never opted into the rules that were suggested by the Conservative private member's bill."

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1471585347830

In other words, "we never opted into following the law." What a joke.

And here's what Michael Chong had to say about it. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1471566915902


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Apr 2019)

And here's what one twitter user has to say about the PM talking smack:


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Fake news... as per the LPC representative states, "we never opted into the rules that were suggested by the Conservative private member's bill."
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1471585347830
> 
> ...



The interviewer really didn't like that bit about "it's the law", but, but, but...

Then trying to get around that niggling fact which Chong handled well.


----------



## TCM621 (9 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Nadon incident



Try as I might, I can't figure out what the problem is. The appointment process is controlled by the PM, who can consult with whom ever he chooses. I don't think he is under any obligation to run his choice past the Chief judge of the Supreme court (although I can see why he might).


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Apr 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> And here's what Michael Chong had to say about it. https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1471566915902


... with some of his train of thought on the issue earlier via his Twitter feed here.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Apr 2019)

If the law is as stated, and the liberals agree they didn't follow it, they just admitted to breaking the law. Breaking the law requires, investigation and the recommendation of charges, if the investigation conclude the law was indeed broken. 

The Ethics commissioner can fine parties it recognizes as having stepped outside those ethics rules. 

I don't believe the Commissioner has the power to investigate and prosecute a blatant breaking of the law, outside their mandate.

If all the above is true, who is supposed to be looking and saying, "Hey, they just broke the law" and having brought that to the authorities, who says, "Yep, let's investigate and if proven,we'll prosecute."

Surely, someone has the legal standing and independence to do this, without any input from the parties.

Or do we just have to do the same as we've watched with these latest hearing where the sitting government can just shut down the kangaroo court and say "Move along, nothing to see here."

The law is the law. Period. Breaking the law, requires consequences.

Why aren't our Federal Law Enforcement not enforcing? Are they powerless when it comes to investigating their bosses? Not their bailiwick? 

If not, whose?

Getting away with constant disregard for our laws and Charter, will just give the rest of us an excuse to say "Fuck it" also.

Not good when they expect legal and law abiding firearms owners to voluntarily turn in their iron, because the same government that constantly disregards the law says they made a new law and we have to follow it. Just an example.

It could easily be, oh I don't know, paying taxes, or any other law. If the King doesn't follow it, his subjects don't have to either.


----------



## brihard (9 Apr 2019)

The applicable sections of the Parliament of Canada Act, as amended by Chong’s Reform Act:

“49.1 In this Division, caucus means a group composed solely of members of the House of Commons who are members of the same recognized party.

2015, c. 37, s. 4.
Marginal note:Expulsion of caucus member

49.2 A member of a caucus may only be expelled from it if

(a) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting that the member’s membership be reviewed; and

(b) the expulsion of the member is approved by secret ballot by a majority of all caucus members.

2015, c. 37, s. 4.”


With that established, I looked for any specific or general offense provision that would link to this, and there isn’t one- so I don’t see an offense that a party leader or official(s) could be investigated for and charged with for a contravention of this. I think this leaves it subject to either civil litigation or judicial review on application to a court, but I’m really not sure how that would play out. I’m wondering if FJAG might have some insight for how an aggrieved party could proceed in such a case? I’m sure there’s recourse, but I don’t know what it is, and I don’t see anything that would bring the police into play...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 Apr 2019)

I suspect the JR route is most likely.


----------



## Cloud Cover (9 Apr 2019)

Deleted.


----------



## Jarnhamar (9 Apr 2019)

This is like watching some twisted version of the Milgram experiment.


----------



## Loachman (9 Apr 2019)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/liberal-markham-stouffville-riding-resigns-jane-philpott-1.5084247

Most of Jane Philpott's Liberal riding association leadership quits

'We had a star candidate in Jane,' says board secretary

Amara McLaughlin CBC News Posted: Apr 09, 2019 11:27 AM ET

Most board members of the federal Liberal riding association for Markham-Stouffville - represented by MP Jane Philpott - have stepped down in solidarity with the well-liked former cabinet minister, with the board's secretary saying she no longer has "the heart" to back a new candidate.

In an exclusive interview with CBC News, an emotional Leea Nutson said she and nine other members of the association's 16-member board tendered their resignations following a meeting Monday night.

With a fall federal election campaign bearing down, Nutson said that two board members will be staying on in the interim to assist the campaign of the next Liberal candidate. Three others will continue serving the riding association, while one member's intentions are unknown.

Nutson said that the board members chose to resign independently and did not offer their resignations as "a protest" against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. The volunteers simply "don't have the energy" to support another candidate, she said.

"I have no longer got the heart to run or work on another campaign," Nutson told CBC News from her home in Markham, north of Toronto, today.

"We had a star candidate in Jane."

<snip>

In Philpott's riding Tuesday, many said they would continue to support her if she ran - even as an independent.

"She's been good for the town and she probably stood up for what she thought was right. I think if she were running again here, we'd probably still vote for her," said resident George Sled.

Those leaving the federal Liberal riding association board are among its most senior members. Many worked on Philpott's campaign in 2015 and those of previous party candidates.

The board is the backbone of the Liberal party in the Markham-Stouffville riding. The volunteers are key players for a candidate seeking a foothold in the community because they organize campaign rallies, phone banks and door-to-door canvassing.

"The board members that are left are very worthy individuals," said Nutson, adding they're going to have to work fast to find replacements for more than half of the association's leaders.

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/canada/philpott-says-trudeaus-caucus-expulsions-violated-law/wcm/5f130f40-5df0-4dbb-9a99-f47dafcd8f99

Philpott says Trudeau's caucus expulsions violated law

Philpott says the Parliament of Canada Act says MPs can't be kicked out of their party groups without a vote and Trudeau ejected them on his own

The Canadian Press Updated: April 9, 2019

<snip>

On Sunday, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer revealed that Trudeau's lawyer had sent him a libel notice, demanding he retract his claims that the prime minister had lied to Canadians and interfered with the SNC prosecution. Scheer made clear he has no such plans.

Trudeau, asked about the legal threat, said Tuesday that with an election coming up, _*it's important that politicians be discouraged from twisting the truth and distorting reality*_.

_*"You can’t be lying to Canadians,"*_ said Trudeau. _*"It’s not something we're going to put up with."*_

https://www.straight.com/news/1225301/ex-federal-liberal-agency-canada-director-calls-party-probe-expulsion-wilson-raybould

Ex-Federal Liberal Agency of Canada director calls for party probe into expulsion of Wilson-Raybould and Philpott

by Charlie Smith on April 8th, 2019 at 6:32 PM

For more than three decades, Vancouver chartered professional accountant Elbert King (Bert) Paul was a loyal federal Liberal.

He served on the board of the Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, which is the party's chief agent. And he chaired its audit committee.

Today, Paul asked the Liberal Party of Canada president, Suzanne Cowan, to launch an "independent investigation" into the April 2 expulsion of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus.

In a letter to Cowan, Paul cited a recent interview with Conservative MP Michael Chong on CBC's Power & Politics show.

<snip>

He copied the correspondence to Canada's chief electoral officer, Stéphane Perreault.

"I have specific concerns arising from possible contravention of the Canada Election Act pertaining to the rights of disenfranchised liberal voters in the ridings of Vancouver Granville and Markham-Stouffville [which are represented by Wilson-Raybould and Philpott]," Paul stated. "I, along with Canadians, await your response with deep concern."

https://www.thestar.com/politics/2019/04/03/i-will-never-vote-again-for-the-liberals-bc-voters-reconsider-their-ballots-after-jody-wilson-raybould-expulsion.html

‘I will never vote again for the Liberals’: B.C. voters reconsider their ballots after Jody Wilson-Raybould expulsion

By David P. Ball Star Vancouver Wed., April 3, 2019

VANCOUVER - Many B.C. voters who cast their ballots for the Liberals in the last federal election are having second thoughts as the next one looms - and several told the Star that the "last straw" was seeing one of B.C.’s star members of Parliament expelled from caucus.

That backs up a recent poll by Research Co. that found dwindling support for the party from the very people who supported it in 2015.

The survey, released last week, found one-third of 2015 Liberal voters in B.C. think a different leader than Trudeau would do things better, while one in four thought "a different party would do things better in Ottawa as a government than the Liberals." (The poll of 800 people had a 3.5 per cent margin of error).

In that election, British Columbia was home to nine of 70 narrow victories - ridings where Liberal candidates beat their opponents by less than five per cent of the ballots. That's why experts say the Liberals need to be careful about risking B.C. ahead of this fall's federal election, which must be held before Oct. 21.

<snip>


----------



## Loachman (9 Apr 2019)

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/supporters-in-vancouver-riding-would-back-wilson-raybould-as-an-independent-1.4363443

Supporters in Vancouver riding would back Wilson-Raybould as an Independent

Laura Kane and Hina Alam, The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, April 3, 2019 4:35AM EDT

VANCOUVER - Supporters of Jody Wilson-Raybould in her Vancouver Granville riding say they're disappointed she was ejected from the Liberal caucus but they would back her in the federal election if she ran as an Independent.

Tracy Beshara, executive director of Marpole Oakridge Family Place in south Vancouver, said she has met Wilson-Raybould and she is a woman of "integrity and quality."

"All that is going on with her is a disappointment, and we support her fully," said Beshara. "She's honest. She's real and she can tell you both sides. She won't tell you what you want to hear. She'll tell you the way it is. Most politicians don't do that."

<snip>

Throughout it all, many supporters in Vancouver Granville have stood by their MP, who they describe as direct, honest and genuine. Beshara said she hadn't kept up with every news development but she would "absolutely" support Wilson-Raybould if she ran independently or for a different party.

<snip>

Epperson said if Wilson-Raybould chose to run as an Independent, he'd volunteer for her campaign, as an individual and not as a representative of the church.

"Just after she was elected she reached out to me - I didn't reach out to her - recognizing we were an important constituency within her riding. She's an excellent retail politician and that's a compliment."

<snip>

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-one-and-only-person-to-blame-for-the-snc-lavalin-scandal/

The one and only person to blame for the SNC-Lavalin scandal

Andrew MacDougall: It was Justin Trudeau making bad calls every step of the way. He is the sole author of his government's misfortune.

by Andrew MacDougall Apr 5, 2019

<snip>

Instead of barking at the doctor for diagnosing the disease the Liberals should instead thank Wilson-Raybould and Philpott for highlighting the pathology. Because there is one person to blame for the eight weeks lost to the oozing SNC-Lavalin scandal: Justin Trudeau.

It was Justin Trudeau's advisors who took meeting after meeting with SNC-Lavalin as the company repeatedly begged for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) regime in Canada.

It was Justin Trudeau who acquiesced and stuffed the legislation creating DPAs into the 2018 budget.

It was Justin Trudeau who told Jody Wilson-Raybould to find a solution when the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada rejected SNC's application for a DPA.

It was Justin Trudeau who sent adviser after adviser after Wilson-Raybould and her advisers, including his advisers — Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard — who met with SNC more than anyone else.

It was Justin Trudeau that was in a mood to get the DPA done, and Justin Trudeau who sent Michael Wernick over to send a message that Wilson-Raybould's job was on the line if she didn't deliver one.

It was Justin Trudeau who pulled the trigger on the cabinet shuffle that sent Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs, and Justin Trudeau who gagged his former minister from giving her side of the story on her resignation.

It was Justin Trudeau who lied and called the original Globe and Mail report "false", and Justin Trudeau who sanctioned his office to go after Wilson-Raybould off the record.

It was Justin Trudeau who gave what was advance-billed as an apology press conference and then forgot to deliver an apology. It was Justin Trudeau who tossed into word salad every time the opposition asked a pointed question about any of it.

It was Justin Trudeau who kept changing his story, and Justin Trudeau who kept calling interference in the criminal justice system a difference of interpretation.

And it was Justin Trudeau who shot the messengers and Justin Trudeau who gaslighted them in the presence of young female leaders, all because he can't take one good look in the mirror.

If Liberals want to be mad at anybody, they should direct their anger to Justin Trudeau, who is the sole author of his government's misfortune.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/liberal-support-just-bleeding-all-over-the-place/

'Liberal support just bleeding all over the place'

A deep dive into recent Angus Reid data shows Liberal support is moving to the Conservatives, NDP and Green parties - a stampede away, rather than a dash toward any particular tent

by Shannon Proudfoot Apr 5, 2019

<snip>

Vote retention - the proportion of people who voted for a party in 2015 who say they would choose the same party again this fall - is "rock solid" for the Conservatives, at 88 per cent, while the Liberals would retain 58 per cent of their 2015 voters. And that erstwhile Liberal support has been sprinkled relatively equitably between the Conservatives, NDP and Green party. That suggests that the shift is a stampede away, rather than a dash toward any particular tent.

"It does suggest that the bleed or the fleeing from the party at the moment has more to do with an anger at the party and a rejection of what people are seeing today from their government and from their prime minister," Kurl says. "[If] we saw a clear signal that all of that vote was going NDP, or Conservative, then it would say to me, okay, this has to do with the other leader more than it has to do with the own goals or the self-inflicted wounds of the Liberals. People are just sort of scattering in all directions, it's a bit of a blast radius."

The big questions are whether the Liberals can draw those exasperated voters back, whether they can do it by October, and how durable that electoral anger is, says Kurl. Those kinds of questions quickly slide into the realm of strategic voting and open up the possibility of a left-of-centre drift to the NDP, she notes, and while Jagmeet Singh's languishing approval numbers would seem to make that unlikely, elections are full of "never say never" oddities (please see: Mulcair, Thomas c. 2015).

In Angus Reid's polling, Kurl sees a significant gender split, with men far more likely to say they will vote Conservative and the Liberals leading among women. The Liberals just tabled a budget filled with measures aimed at dealing with poverty, income inequality and affordability - all issues that tend to resonate with female voters - but it has been virtually impossible for the government to make any of that messaging heard over the din of SNC.

"If there is a saviour right now for the party, it will be the female vote," says Kurl - but the optics and main characters in this saga are doing them no favours on that front. "They need women. And who are the faces and the standard-bearers of this conflict? It's two very strong women."

<snip>

It's a cautionary tale for building a political party's brand so firmly around the persona of the leader, says Kurl, and Trudeau and his party are in a uniquely difficult spot for navigating around it. When Jean Chretien faced an unfavourable personal brand, dubbed "yesterday's man" before he won the leadership of the Liberal party in 1990, he made everything about the team around him, but that does not seem like a plausible option for the Trudeau Liberals.

"This is more than an issue of emphasis. Justin Trudeau has been the party. He has been the brand, he has been the face of government," says Kurl. "Justin Trudeau has never talked about the team, and the party has never talked about the team; it's been the Justin Trudeau show. When the ratings start to go south for the Justin Trudeau show, people are not going to say, 'Well, there's a whole bunch of key supporting players here and an ensemble cast, and the storyline is really interesting so I'm going to stick with it."

Instead, she says, "They change the channel."

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-it-will-be-a-while-before-vogue-calls-on-trudeau-again?video_autoplay=true

Rex Murphy: It will be a while before Vogue calls on Trudeau again

Sans halo, he now walks the ground like every other politician, as pedestrian as the rest of them

Rex Murphy April 5, 2019 4:18 PM EDT

<snip>

It'll be a while before Vogue comes calling again. Or Vanity Fair, oracle of the yuppie woke, teases out such spellbinding headlines as "Let Justin Trudeau in His Pajamas Brighten Your Monday," followed by the beautiful kite tail of a sub-head "Not all superheroes wear capes." Which is shorthand for saying that the "stylishness" component of the Trudeau brand, the meretricious appeal of the politician as celebrity, is done and gone. The charisma of celebrity as opposed to the celebrity of accomplishment or real achievement, is always a thin halo, and can vanish with a tweet. Once evaporated it never returns.

<snip>

What a mockery the tactics of the past few weeks have made of that pledge, that electing the Trudeau team would drag Canada out of the demon pit of "Harper-style politics." Canadian comedy is not nearly as good as it thinks it is, but the purge after-spin has provided a few lines that out-Leacock Stephen Leacock's best for magnificently absurd humour.

On how the Liberals are "doing politics differently," Seamus O'Regan, among the most mobile of the Trudeau cabinet, bested his own (surely immortal) "O Captain! Our Captain!" tweet - the Everest summit of courtier sycophancy - when he came up with this one-liner for CTV: "I think it's a real strength that it took us time to come to terms with this." Absolutely. And just think how much stronger the party would be if it had dragged it out even longer. No pain, no gain, I suppose.

Superb bon mot that it was, O'Regan's must bend the knee and take the silver to the real howler than came from fellow standup artist/cabinet minister Marie-Claude Bibeau: "If we had done politics like it used to be done, they would have been kicked out two months ago ... this is why we say it's doing politics differently." Translation: we're like Stephen Harper, only slower. Harper in lead boots.

<snip>

Twelve hours after firing the two women that - I think it's fair to say - the majority of the Daughters of the Vote most wanted to meet, or looked up to, Mr. Trudeau mumbled-stumbled through the most awkward six minutes of his none too distinguished oratorical life. At one point he appeared not to remember Jane Philpott's name. Perhaps a kinder explanation is that he was too embarrassed to say it. He did show up - he must be given credit for that.

But what could he say to the gathering of young feminists, as it were, the morning after? He wandered, as is his wont, through a forest of non-sequiturs, referenced a fantasy feud between Jody Wilson-Raybould and Chrystia Freeland ("I know nobody in here wants to have to pick who to believe between Jody Wilson-Raybould and Chrystia Freeland"), tried his best to ignore that he was speaking to the backs of about 50 or so of his audience, muttered the obligatory reference to diversity, something about trust and teams, and things went more or less downhill from there.

<snip>

Mr. Trudeau is 47, white, and male. A few more years and he'll hit the trifecta he so abundantly abhors.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/04/05/the-liberals-have-abandoned-their-moral-principles-and-its-justin-trudeaus-fault.html

The Liberals have abandoned their moral principles and it's Justin Trudeau's fault

By Rosie DiManno Star Fri., April 5, 2019

It is dismaying to me, a political agnostic, that thuggery is now attached to the federal Liberal party.

It is appalling to me, a feminist, that so many who claim to respect women, who call themselves feminists - most especially the piously feminist prime minister but all his acolytes in the partisan media - have turned themselves inside-out to rationalize the bullying of female Liberal ministers. Because, readily admitted even, the existential threat of Andrew Scheer at 24 Sussex Drive looms as such a calamity, come the October election, that anything, anything, would be preferable, up to and including the abandonment of all moral principles.

It is grotesque, to me, how small and vindictive Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had become - lifted on the shoulders of his party disciples - trying to make a virtue out of the jettisoning of two women who dared to vouchsafe integrity, falling afoul of the caucus cabal.

While it is marginally understandable that Jody Wilson-Raybould had to be cut loose despite the ugly optics of ditching the country's first Indigenous justice minister and attorney general - before she was shuffled to veteran affairs in January, at the dawn (though we didn't yet know that) of the SNC-Lavalin scandal - her utter expulsion this week, the pariah-making of an ethical individual is confounding in its berserk timing, seven weeks into the shemozzle and guaranteed to do the exact opposite of bringing this ruinous episode to an end.

<snip>

There is no redeeming dimension to Trudeau's brutality. He has dissembled and shammed his way through nearly two months of tortuous squabble. If the Liberal party is in crisis, the seeds were sown in the PMO and a PM of towering hauteur.

A phoney feminist to boot.

To be worn only like a rose on his lapel.


----------



## Loachman (9 Apr 2019)

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/snc-lavalin-justin-trudeaus-fall-grace/586645/

Justin Trudeau Falls From Grace

The Canadian prime minister faces a political crisis of his own devising.

Apr 8, 2019 David Frum

<snip>

But there were always two cracks visible in the face Trudeau presented to the world, and over the past three weeks, those lines have widened.

The first flaw: When frustrated or disappointed, he loses his cool. As one person on the receiving end of his ill temper put it to me, "He yells when he does not get his way, then gloats when he does." The second? Trudeau does not always accurately think through the ultimate consequences of his actions.

Together, those two fault lines create a dangerous formula for bad decision making in times of crisis.

Over the four years since he came to power in November 2015, Trudeau has offset his personal weaknesses by relying heavily on shrewder advisers. But since February, a serious and growing scandal has cost him the service of trusted aides. The head of the civil service has been forced to resign. Trudeau has been left more and more to his own judgment. This past weekend, that judgment tinged the scandal with a new note of farce.

On April 3, in the Canadian House of Commons, Trudeau was forced, under tightly focused questioning by Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, to acknowledge that one of his first important statements about the scandal had been a falsehood.

On April 7, the leader of the Conservative Party, Andrew Scheer, revealed that a week earlier, a lawyer for Trudeau had threatened him with a libel lawsuit, a rare step in Canadian politics. One basis of the threat? Scheer had, on March 29, accused Trudeau of lying about the very thing that, on April 3, Trudeau admitted to lying about.

Could the situation get more absurd? Yes! On the evening of April 7, Trudeau's spinners issued a statement denouncing Scheer for wasting the public's time talking about issues irrelevant to Canadians’ real concerns - that is, by talking about the lawsuit Trudeau himself had initiated.

<snip>

It was for saying these things outside Parliament that Trudeau threatened litigation on March 31. The abrupt collapse of the factual predicate for that lawsuit in the following week led to the unusual outcome that by April 7, the target of the lawsuit eagerly invited the prospective plaintiff to proceed: "If Mr. Trudeau intends to pursue this course of legal action, if he believes he has a case against me, I urge him to do so immediately," Scheer said. That same day, a spokesperson for the prospective plaintiff dismissed his own threat of a lawsuit as a petty distraction from the important concerns of voters: "Andrew Scheer’s press conference today is yet another attempt at talking about anything other than his own damaging plans for the economy."

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/04/09/Why-Has-Trudeau-Risked-So-Much-SNC-Lavalin/

<snip>

Why Has Trudeau Risked So Much for SNC-Lavalin?

Four related mysteries fuel flames of an ever more ruinous scandal.

By Michael Harris

4. Why squander the 'transparent' high ground?

The PM's final bit of amnesia? These words from his mandate letter to his minister of international development back in 2015:

"It's time to shine more light on government... Government and its information should be open by default... It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them... Canadians do not expect us to be perfect - they always expect us to be honest, open and sincere..."

Not much of that since Feb. 7.


----------



## FJAG (9 Apr 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The applicable sections of the Parliament of Canada Act, as amended by Chong’s Reform Act:
> 
> “49.1 In this Division, caucus means a group composed solely of members of the House of Commons who are members of the same recognized party.
> 
> ...



I'm not generally familiar with the Act but like you I gave it a quick read for an Offences and Punishments section. There is one but it is entirely limited to the circumstance of illegally using the term "Parliament Hill". Without a general (or specific to s 49) "Offences" provision there is no prosecution (and thereby police investigation) provided for any breach of the Act. 

Recourse would be some form of civil procedure by the Federal Court to enforce the appropriate provision which is being contravened (for example a declaration or injunction might be issued negating or suspending the improper act, or an order might be issued to redo the process this time using the appropriate methods etc)

As an aside I find it quite interesting that the general press hasn't jumped on the dictatorial personality of Trudeau like they did to Harper who was, IMHO, nowhere near as bad as this boy is.

 :cheers:


----------



## YZT580 (10 Apr 2019)

Why has the liberal party risked so much for SNC Lavelin?  The question was asked in one of the editorials quoted above and it bears repeating.  There had to be red flags posted all over this issue way back in September.  There are some pretty bright people working in the PMO who would certainly have marked this as dangerous territory and cautioned Trudeau against proceeding.  The folks behind Trudeau who pull the strings and run the party would certainly not have allowed this mess to develop unless they couldn't see any way around it.  9000 jobs seems like a lot but GM has lost more in Oshawa in the last decade and the oil fields have bled probably twice that many so that can't be it.  Any ideas?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Apr 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Why has the liberal party risked so much for SNC Lavelin?  The question was asked in one of the editorials quoted above and it bears repeating.  There had to be red flags posted all over this issue way back in September.  There are some pretty bright people working in the PMO who would certainly have marked this as dangerous territory and cautioned Trudeau against proceeding.  The folks behind Trudeau who pull the strings and run the party would certainly not have allowed this mess to develop unless they couldn't see any way around it.  9000 jobs seems like a lot but GM has lost more in Oshawa in the last decade and the oil fields have bled probably twice that many so that can't be it.  Any ideas?



Arrogance. Plain and simple.
That and an overwhelming desire to kill Canada.


----------



## Eaglelord17 (10 Apr 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Why has the liberal party risked so much for SNC Lavelin?  The question was asked in one of the editorials quoted above and it bears repeating.  There had to be red flags posted all over this issue way back in September.  There are some pretty bright people working in the PMO who would certainly have marked this as dangerous territory and cautioned Trudeau against proceeding.  The folks behind Trudeau who pull the strings and run the party would certainly not have allowed this mess to develop unless they couldn't see any way around it.  9000 jobs seems like a lot but GM has lost more in Oshawa in the last decade and the oil fields have bled probably twice that many so that can't be it.  Any ideas?



Corruption, plain and simple. In the link below SNC-Lavalin was illegally donating to political parties (with the Liberals being the main recipient), I wonder what else is going on behind the scenes there. Personally I am surprised that this also hasn't really been brought up (or if it has I haven't seen it) in the news for this scandal.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2927286/snc-lavalin-illegally-donated-over-117k-to-federal-parties-elections-canada/

https://business.financialpost.com/news/snc-lavalin-donated-more-than-1-million-to-quebec-political-parties-commission-told


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Apr 2019)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> Why has the liberal party risked so much for SNC Lavelin?  The question was asked in one of the editorials quoted above and it bears repeating.  There had to be red flags posted all over this issue way back in September.  There are some pretty bright people working in the PMO who would certainly have marked this as dangerous territory and cautioned Trudeau against proceeding.  The folks behind Trudeau who pull the strings and run the party would certainly not have allowed this mess to develop unless they couldn't see any way around it.  9000 jobs seems like a lot but GM has lost more in Oshawa in the last decade and the oil fields have bled probably twice that many so that can't be it.  Any ideas?



The people that know aren't telling.

That leaves room for speculation, which we are all free to do.

The media have an abundance of juicy facts openly available to drive headlines and sales so they don't have a requirement to speculate.  Much more to come on this, I speculate.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Apr 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I'm not generally familiar with the Act but like you I gave it a quick read for an Offences and Punishments section. There is one but it is entirely limited to the circumstance of illegally using the term "Parliament Hill". Without a general (or specific to s 49) "Offences" provision there is no prosecution (and thereby police investigation) provided for any breach of the Act.
> 
> Recourse would be some form of civil procedure by the Federal Court to enforce the appropriate provision which is being contravened (for example a declaration or injunction might be issued negating or suspending the improper act, or an order might be issued to redo the process this time using the appropriate methods etc)


Adding to that, it appears there's still _more_ to the story -- this from The Canadian Press ...


> ... Amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, spearheaded by Conservative MP Michael Chong, were passed in 2015 in an effort to decentralize political power on Parliament Hill and put it back in the hands of rank-and-file MPs.
> 
> However, the new rules also left it up to caucus members, at their first meeting following an election, to decide whether to opt into the Chong reforms.  The act states that recorded votes are to be held on four different provisions, including the provisions on expulsion of caucus members.*(1)*
> 
> ...


*(1)* - On this bit, here's what the law says:


> ... 49.8 (1) At its first meeting following a general election, the caucus of every party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:
> (a) whether sections 49.2 and 49.3 are to apply in respect of the caucus;
> (b) whether section 49.4 is to apply in respect of the caucus;
> (c) whether subsections 49.5(1) to (3) are to apply in respect of the caucus; and
> (d) whether subsection 49.5(4) and section 49.6 are to apply in respect of the caucus ...


*(2)* -- The law does include how to get back into caucus ...


> ... 49.3 A member of the House of Commons who has been expelled from the caucus of a party may only be readmitted to the caucus
> (a) if the member is re-elected to the House of Commons *as a candidate for that party*; or
> (b) if
> (i) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting the member’s readmission to the caucus, and
> (ii) the readmission of the member is approved by a majority vote by secret ballot of the members of that caucus who are present at a meeting of the caucus ...



And as for a judicial review of any of this?  From the legislation ...


> ... 49.7 Any determination of a matter relating to the internal operations of a party by the caucus, a committee of the caucus or the caucus chair is final and not subject to judicial review ...



So, legal?  Appears that all the steps within the new rules were taken.  

Greasy?  Oh yeah, but it was unanimously agreed that these rules didn't have to apply to the Liberal caucus (including votes by Philpott & JWR at the time), as allowed by the law, so there's a _lot_ of greasiness to go around ...


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Apr 2019)

The rules were optional, but the law required them to vote on it at the first opportunity (which would have been sometime in late 2015).  That's the part of the law they broke. They could have done what the NDP did, and voted against it when it came up, and been good to go. Or they could have accepted it, and that process should have applied. But they did neither, so they can roll like a fiefdom.  

Kind of weird to put a law in place with no penalties for not following it, assuming something like that would fall under the providence of elections canada, with penalties levied against the party for non-compliance.


----------



## Jarnhamar (10 Apr 2019)

[quote author=milnews.ca] 

Greasy?  
[/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FsAgPuVwU


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Apr 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The rules were optional, but the law required them to vote on it at the first opportunity (which would have been sometime in late 2015).  That's the part of the law they broke. They could have done what the NDP did, and voted against it when it came up, and been good to go. Or they could have accepted it, and that process should have applied. But they did neither, so they can roll like a fiefdom.
> 
> Kind of weird to put a law in place with no penalties for not following it, assuming something like that would fall under the providence of elections canada, with penalties levied against the party for non-compliance.



I think it comes under the head of "parliamentary sovereignty" and is related to the immunities to law that members of parliament possess while in the physical premises of parliament.


----------



## Navy_Pete (10 Apr 2019)

I guess, but seeing as all the rules for the running of a riding association, nomination of candidates, etc fall under the Elections Act, seems like it would have fit in there (given that the candidate was at some point nominated by the local riding association, at least in theory).

Either way, the fact that they couldn't be bothered to just vote against it if they didn't want to adopt the rule is pretty galling. Not sure if that's lazy, arrogant, or just a lack of attention to details, but none of those are really good indicators for how to run a railroad.

Amazing, all this could have been avoided by admitting to a mistake, and spinning it off as a misunderstanding 'of the different' truths'. I don't get people sometimes; the Trudeau Party of Canada has now torpedoed their 'brand' worldwide, and alienated a lot of people that voted against Harper (vice for them). They went from something that could have been a minor hiccup with a temporary black eye, to something that has been simmering for months and kicking them in the teeth daily.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Apr 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> I guess, but seeing as all the rules for the running of a riding association, nomination of candidates, etc fall under the Elections Act, seems like it would have fit in there (given that the candidate was at some point nominated by the local riding association, at least in theory).


But the Elections Act covers a non-partisan activity, while the Parliament of Canada Act tries to govern _political_ stuff, which is trickier to manage, given how much political control politicians will want.  I'm _guessing_ that's why they threw in the "a court can't review what we decide" bit.


			
				Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> ... the fact that they couldn't be bothered to just vote against it if they didn't want to adopt the rule is pretty galling. Not sure if that's *lazy, arrogant, or just a lack of attention to details*, but none of those are really good indicators for how to run a railroad ...


... or a whipped-but-not-whipped attempt to make it easier for the boss to do whatever they want.


----------



## The Bread Guy (10 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FsAgPuVwU


 :rofl: I didn't even think of that until AFTER I'd posted.


----------



## Loachman (10 Apr 2019)

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/im-not-withdrawing-my-remarks-scheer-repeats-alleged-libel-goads-trudeau-to-follow-through-on-lawsuit/wcm/bf5021cc-3936-4f66-be8c-affc531b705c

'I'm not withdrawing my remarks': Scheer repeats alleged libel, goads Trudeau to follow through on lawsuit

'Will he have the backbone to stand by his threats and show up in court to fight this case?' the Conservative leader asked of the PM

The Canadian Press Updated: April 10, 2019

OTTAWA - Andrew Scheer did his level best Wednesday to provoke Prime Minister Justin Trudeau into following through on his threat to sue him over allegedly libellous criticism of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

The Conservative leader repeated, word for word, the March 29 statement that prompted Trudeau’s lawyer, Julian Porter, to send him notice of a potential libel suit.

For good measure, Scheer did it outside the House of Commons - making the point that he’s not trying to hide behind parliamentary privilege that protects anything said in the chamber from lawsuits.

"I'm not withdrawing my remarks. In fact, I'm standing by them and I repeated them outside of the House of Commons," Scheer told Trudeau during question period a short time later.

"Will he have the backbone to stand by his threats and show up in court to fight this case?"

Trudeau did not respond directly to Scheer's repeated taunts but he didn't withdraw the threat either.

"We put (Scheer) on notice because he and his party have a history of making false and defamatory statements," the prime minister said.

"We won't stand by while he continues to mislead Canadians."

<snip>

Scheer said he stands by "every single word" in that statement, whereas Trudeau's "falsehoods" in the SNC-Lavalin affair "would be perjury in a court of law."


----------



## Furniture (10 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Arrogance. Plain and simple.
> That and an overwhelming desire to kill Canada.



I completely agree with the highlighted part. 

This strikes me as a clear example of what happens when a leader is surrounded by yes people(need to be inclusive), and then falls for their own hype. This is the kind of thing I'd expect from a government late in it's second term,  or into it's third. I suppose we should all thank the PMO for exposing the rot at it's core so soon.


----------



## Remius (11 Apr 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> I completely agree with the highlighted part.
> 
> This strikes me as a clear example of what happens when a leader is surrounded by yes people(need to be inclusive), and then falls for their own hype. This is the kind of thing I'd expect from a government late in it's second term,  or into it's third. I suppose we should all thank the PMO for exposing the rot at it's core so soon.



Same.  But I think it goes beyond yes men.  It has to do I think with a PMO that has been able to avoid any serious repercussions for their actions, statements etc.  The Teflon has worn off.  They likely thought they could weather this because they weathered issues before that had no real effect on them.  This time it is different and they don't know what to do.  

It's like the popular girl in school that can do no wrong.  She can say and do what she wants because everyone likes her.  Until she finally crosses the line and everyone hates her.  She keeps acting the way she is because she does not know anything else.  And she can't ever understand why people don't like her anymore.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Apr 2019)

Can anybody really, really think of one good thing this guy has done for Canada and Canadians since he's been in office? I have yet seen him do anything that is good for us, but he's great at taking care of the world. From where I sit, every single thing he does mires us in more debt, divides Canadians, increase our dependence on foreign oil, ignores the homeless and destitute while allowing millions of social dollars to go to illegal aliens. 

I'm just guessing that any money he's giving away must be borrowed. Canada is surely broke, insolvent and overdrawn. My concern is who might be holding the IOU's.

And Great Zeus, the lies, outright arrogance and aristocratic scorn, watching him tell reporters that he is going to hold the conservatives to the rule of law and that their untruths won't be tolerated and he's had enough of people lying. When even the blindest person can see where the lies, cheating and deceit is really coming from. Straight out of the Joseph Goebbels 101. This is the true face of the Laurentien Elites.

We went to bed with Harper in charge, fairly happy and content with our standing. Then we woke up in some sort of Bizzarro World and have been standing around looking at our navels while the country implodes wondering what the hell happened.


----------



## Lumber (11 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> Can anybody really, really think of one good thing this guy has done for Canada and Canadians since he's been in office?



Yes... yes I can. Such as:
1. The Canada Child Benefit;
2. Lowered taxes for middle class;
3. Reinstated the long-form census (this one resonated particularly with me);
4. Revitalized federal ocean science programs by hiring 135 new aquatic scientists for new reasearch;
5. Returned OAS eligibility to 65 (I'm personally not for this one, but I'm not going to say this one was a mistake, but simply choosing someone else's priorities over my own);
6. Launched National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry (which has been a gong show no doubt, but the intention is nothing but good);
7. Legalized medical assistance in dying;
8. Senate-appointment reform;
9. Re-opened numerous veterans affairs offices;
10. Signed Paris Climate Change Agreement;
11. Increased Canada Student Grants;
12. Bill C-59 (National Security Act);
13. Bill C-68 (Fisheries Act);
14. Bill C-45 (Cannabis Act).

There's lots of good the LPC has done for Canada. 

Is there lots of bad? Sure. 

Is there more bad than good... I think that's more a matter of preference and opinion than it is a matter of facts, but then I also acknowledge that the veracity of this very statement is _also_ matter of opinion as well...so...

But you didn't ask for a comparison, you asked if he'd done ANYTHING good, and well, there you are.


----------



## QV (11 Apr 2019)

> 2. Lowered taxes for middle class



I've had to pay more and more every year since 2015.  My rate of pay has been fairly consistent.  My feeling is there are more taxes now than before. 

Edit:  My 2017 return is about the same as my 2014 return, but my 2015 and 2016 returns were slightly higher by 1.5 - 2%.  Whatever you can make of that...


----------



## Jarnhamar (11 Apr 2019)

[quote author=Lumber]
3. Reinstated the long-form census *(this one resonated particularly with me);*[/quote]

How come?


----------



## Lumber (11 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> How come?



Lots of reasons, but it mostly  boils down to that I like filling out the census. I the only way to make informed decisions is with good information, and the best way to get real data on the status and makeup of your population is a census.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (11 Apr 2019)

It's not just one program in your list that's a gong show. Throwing out a undefined program, with a fancy title and outrageous announcements but  without reasonable goals, tossing some money at it and then letting it wither, is not a good thing or an accomplishment. Even if they were able to make some believe it. Fisheries? - scam license to relatives. Middle class taxes? - everyone is paying more and they still haven't stopped making new taxes to take a bigger chunk. Inquiry into Missing women? Natives don't think so and where are the results, recommendation and what action is coming from it? Senate Appointment Reform has proven that there is no Senate Reform. Paris Climate Agreement? It's proven to be a farce with unattainable goals. 

Just because these guys tossed out a fancy named initiative, glued it to glossing travel brochures and gave out contract to some questionable sources, doesn't mean they've done good stuff.

It's easy to rhyme off the titles, but where and how are those programs actually doing is the question.


On a separate note, as I have no other way to contact The Head,

Once again, I speak against trudeau and I get an auto dock of -300 milpoints. At least this time, you didn't leave a smarmy, ad hominem statement in my milpoints.

You only lurk and milpoint, your prerogative of course, that's what they are there for. However, after three years of deductions, you'd think you could at least post more than anti Harper/Trump cartoons.

Your 'neutral' stance today was noted for its atypical muted response. I hope you're not ill and just in too much of a hurry to compose one of your silly one liners.

I appreciate that. Thanks.


----------



## Jed (11 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> It's not just one program in your list that's a gong show. Throwing out a undefined program, with a fancy title and outrageous announcements but  without reasonable goals, tossing some money at it and then letting it wither, is not a good thing or an accomplishment. Even if they were able to make some believe it. Fisheries? - scam license to relatives. Middle class taxes? - everyone is paying more and they still haven't stopped making new taxes to take a bigger chunk. Inquiry into Missing women? Natives don't think so and where are the results, recommendation and what action is coming from it? Senate Appointment Reform has proven that there is no Senate Reform. Paris Climate Agreement? It's proven to be a farce with unattainable goals.
> 
> Just because these guys tossed out a fancy named initiative, glued it to glossing travel brochures and gave out contract to some questionable sources, doesn't mean they've done good stuff.
> 
> ...



I appreciate the thoughtful way you have dealt with what is a subtle drive by hit.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Apr 2019)

>Can anybody really, really think of one good thing this guy has done for Canada and Canadians since he's been in office?

It's too subjective a question to be properly answered.  Pretty much everything a government does, and every dollar it spends, benefits someone, somewhere.  The beneficiaries inevitably argue that it's "good for Canada and Canadians", without quantifying any sort of qualifying threshold.


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones: 





> On a separate note, as I have no other way to contact The Head.....



Send him a PM. He answered before and we had a couple of conversations.


----------



## Journeyman (11 Apr 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> > Arrogance. Plain and simple.
> > That and an overwhelming desire to kill Canada.
> 
> 
> I completely agree with the highlighted part.


What about the second part?   op:


----------



## Journeyman (11 Apr 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Fishbone Jones:
> Send him a PM. He answered before and we had a couple of conversations.


Apparently a PM will not go through to someone who has you on IGNORE.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Apr 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Yes... yes I can. Such as:
> 1. The Canada Child Benefit;
> 2. Lowered taxes for middle class;
> 3. Reinstated the long-form census (this one resonated particularly with me);
> ...



I leave the other point for people better versed to respond to.

3. Not everyone agrees
6. Has been political theatre that fell off the rails and for the most part has drowned
13.  I have been involved in this one  (CNWA) and I have major concerns about what all theses Acts promise and the inability of government to create the infrastructure to run them. I also expect they will have a significant damping effect on larger projects in the West, causing an economic downturn. while the CPC swung the pendulum to far one way, this swings them to far the other and if they receive Royal Assent in June-july and then the CPC wins, they will make amendments to reduce the damage early on. Needless to say I pity my former colleagues that will have to live that regulatory nightmare and for the people 30 years from now trying to figure out WTF was going on.
10. yes the world is safer now that Canada has been brought to heel....
14.  Really this was public demand and they just jumped on the bandwagon, I give more credit to the people who did the hardwork to get it there. I give the Libs credit in realizing it was a easy win for them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Apr 2019)

So the Speaker ruled that he has no jurisdiction to rule on Jane Philpott’s claim. The argument is that Liberals never opted into the 2015 changes to the Act, but i don't see anything that gives the right to "Opt out" https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-1/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/speaker-shuts-down-philpott-s-claim-that-pm-contravened-law-with-caucus-expulsions-1.4375510?fbclid=IwAR1pDnjxyODePcHXZ53BoNcYWVIZN-vTJwgzLSuyrS4qh70YtUX5kkK4Two


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Apr 2019)

So who does have jurisdiction?


----------



## Cloud Cover (11 Apr 2019)

There does appear to be a sense of dereliction of duty, if not outright abdication from it in this one. One would think the Minister for Democratic Institutions would have accountability to ensure creatures of Parliament conform and comply with the letter and spirit of the Parliament of Canada Act, but nowhere is that written. 
Edit: https://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-democratic-institutions-mandate-letter


----------



## Furniture (11 Apr 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> What about the second part?   op:



I disagree, but wasn't looking to start an argument.

I don't think any major political party, or politician within them truly wants to do harm to Canada. I just think their opinion of what is good, and best for Canada differs from mine from time to time. 




Not the reply you expected, was it?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Apr 2019)

So this is the section that determines whether the party is subject to the vote, the next question is: Did they vote on this and record that as such?

49.8 (1) At its first meeting following a general election, the caucus of every party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:

(a) whether sections 49.2 and 49.3 are to apply in respect of the caucus;

(b) whether section 49.4 is to apply in respect of the caucus;

(c) whether subsections 49.5(1) to (3) are to apply in respect of the caucus; and

(d) whether subsection 49.5(4) and section 49.6 are to apply in respect of the caucus.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (11 Apr 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So the Speaker ruled that he has no jurisdiction to rule on Jane Philpott’s claim. The argument is that Liberals never opted into the 2015 changes to the Act, but i don't see anything that gives the right to "Opt out" https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-1/
> 
> https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/speaker-shuts-down-philpott-s-claim-that-pm-contravened-law-with-caucus-expulsions-1.4375510?fbclid=IwAR1pDnjxyODePcHXZ53BoNcYWVIZN-vTJwgzLSuyrS4qh70YtUX5kkK4Two



Attached is the Speakers ruling on Jane Philipott alegations.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Apr 2019)

thanks

I wonder if said letter is subject to a FOIA?

_members of the Liberal caucus were prevented from
voting on the rules for this decision pursuant to section 49.8 of the
Parliament of Canada Act . She stated explicitly that, in this case, the matter
of privilege is very much about knowing which rules apply for expulsion or
readmission; it is not about a possible caucus expulsion as was the issue
addressed in my ruling on April 8, 2019. In her view, although the Chair
has no role in the interpretation of statutes, it does not relieve the Speaker
of the responsibility to ensure that all members are aware of their rights in
this House.
In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House
Leader informed the House that the Chair of the National Liberal Caucus
had indeed sent the *requisite letter* to the Speaker, specifying that the
provisions of the Act regarding the expulsion and readmission of caucus
members would not apply for the 42nd Parliament_


Because the Act is explicit in the need for a vote.
49.8 (1) At its first meeting following a general election, the caucus of every party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons *shall conduct * a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Apr 2019)

You can request pretty much anything under an FOIA.  Whether you'll actually get it is another story.

If you wait a few days and check what requests have been filed recently, you may find a reporter has already done the work for you, and can just ask for a copy of the same response.

They'll probably black it all out (aside from the header and signature block) and claim cabinet confidence or similar, but would be pretty hard for them to argue there was no record of the letter.


----------



## Remius (11 Apr 2019)

FOIA is an American thing.  

In Canada it is ATIP.


----------



## FJAG (11 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> FOIA is an American thing.
> 
> In Canada it is ATIP.



It's a bit confusing because in most provinces its "Freedom of Information" as most provincial statutes (but not all) are called "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act"

 :cheers:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2019)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Fishbone Jones:
> Send him a PM. He answered before and we had a couple of conversations.


Why? I got nothing to hide. I dont lurk and snipe. Lurkers are like their popcorn. Dry and stale and full of air.

Besides, the ignore function is wonderful.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> I appreciate the thoughtful way you have dealt with what is a subtle drive by hit.



You're welcome


----------



## brihard (12 Apr 2019)

So a bit of a catch up and summary, as best as I can tell, on this latest branch of the ongoing SNC drama:

In 2013, Michael Chong introduced the Reform Act. It passed in the summer of 2015, and amended the Parliament of Canada Act. It included a provision (S.49.2 of said act) to the effect that to expel a member, a caucus chair must receive requests from 20% of the caucus that a member's membership be reviewed, with a 50%+ secret ballot vote to pull the trigger on an expulsion. This is the provision underlying Philpott's complaint that she may have been illegally kicked out of caucus.

But... Chong's law was somewhat toothless in that it left it to each caucus to independently decide if that particular provision (and a few others) applied. After the previous election, each party caucus was to vote on this matter, per S.49.8 of the Act as amended by Chong's bill. The Liberals say they did, and elected not to invoke it. I'm not surprised- the party leadership would not want to hamstring themselves, and the affairs of caucus are quite rightly their own business. They would resist imposition, however well intended, by the broader parliament in how they run their show. I don't know that any party actually voted to apply this section?

So, if the Liberal party caucus voted on this and elected not to impose that section of the Reform Act upon themselves, then they are not bound by it, and then there is no breaking of the law in the party leader expelling someone from caucus unilaterally.The LPC claim that they did vote to this effect after the election, and I don't really see a matter to doubt that- it would be extremely easy to disprove such a claim, and of course both Parliamentarians affected would have been privy to said vote and would no doubt quickly cry foul were that to be lied about. I note that JWR, a lawyer herself, has not spoken up about being illegitimately removed- and she was quite clear that her intent was to remain a liberal. If she had that tool in her toolbox, I have no doubt she would use it.

So, all said and done, it looks like everything that was done was, at least, legal.

Philpott's complaint went to the Speaker of the house of Commons. The speaker quite rightly found that he has no jurisdiction over the interpretation or application of law. That's appropriate, and correct. It would have been the height of irony had he stepped outside of his roles both legal and conventional to make a finding otherwise on this matter.

All hysterics notwithstanding, it appears this remains a matter to be dealt with by the voters, and not the police or courts. And if any credit is to be given to opinion polling whatsoever, it's damned clear that the voters very much intend to show their opinion of this, and that it will not be to the LPC's favour.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ... if the Liberal party caucus voted on this and elected not to impose that section of the Reform Act upon themselves, then they are not bound by it, and then there is no breaking of the law in the party leader expelling someone from caucus unilaterally ...


Unless someone's read something different I haven't seen (more than likely, given the speed of events unfolding), that's still an IF if we believe what The Canadian Press wrote:


> ... Those votes never occurred in the Liberal caucus following Trudeau's victory in 2015. Rather, the newly elected MPs — presumably including Philpott and Wilson-Raybould — voted unanimously to defer the matter to the Liberal party's next convention. Chong's reforms were never discussed at two subsequent Liberal conventions ...


We know from the Speaker's decision that ...


> ... the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader informed the House that the Chair of the National Liberal Caucus had indeed sent the requisite letter to the Speaker, specifying that the provisions of the Act regarding the expulsion and readmission of caucus members would not apply for the 42nd Parliament. This, in his view, makes this question of privilege moot and removes any confusion as to which rules apply. Furthermore, he argued that it is not the role of the Speaker to adjudicate such matters ... It is the caucus of each recognized party, not the Speaker, which bears the responsibility for ensuring that these votes are held ...


So, as Colin P said, $5 and a form _may_ free up that tidbit of information ...


----------



## Journeyman (12 Apr 2019)

Furniture said:
			
		

> Not the reply you expected, was it?


I think it was a good reply.  Thank you.  

Actually though, I wasn't really expecting any response as these threads serve overwhelmingly as fora for single-minded people to beat dead horses, rather than to facilitate informed discussion.  As such, I try to avoid getting dragged into the mud...but somethings are just so mind-numbingly stupid, I stumble and comment (although I did hold my tongue when *Trudeau* was accused of "lies, outright arrogance, and aristocratic scorn" -- behaviours that are apparently unseen south of the border).
       :not-again:

I now return to radio silence.  Enjoy.   :deadhorse:


----------



## Remius (12 Apr 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> $5 and a form _may_ free up that tidbit of information ...



Parliament (HofC and Senate) is exempt from ATIP I believe.  So not likely...


----------



## Navy_Pete (12 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Parliament (HofC and Senate) is exempt from ATIP I believe.  So not likely...



There isn't a blanket ATIP exemption for all parliamentary business, just cabinet confidence things that apply to decisions taken.  You can read it for yourself here;

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-1.html

Also you can find the list of all completed ATIPs here; https://open.canada.ca/en/access-to-information

Funnily enough, there was one for a 'risk assessment if SNC had been convicted of bribery' with zero returns (ie record didn't exist). So either one was never done under due diligence, it didn't ever get to the correct person to find the record, or someone lied and said they didn't have one. Don't envy the person that got the ATIP request to process this one; that could have been any number of departments that would have gotten tagged with that one(PSPC? Finance? ISED?). But something should have come back, if they are pushing PPSC to look at the deffered prosecution option due to job impacts.

Sometimes people get greasy and try and lawyer their way out of them too (they asked for a risk assessment, but maybe it was called an impact assessment or something). That always kind of annoyed me, but would be interested to see the other side and how they go about putting together their information requests. Sometimes they are shotgun fishing expeditions, but othertimes they ask for very specific documents.

Used to joke about submitting an ATIP on the files I was working on to see if it ever got to me, but that would be a pretty good way to ruin a coworkers day.


----------



## Remius (12 Apr 2019)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> There isn't a blanket ATIP exemption for all parliamentary business, just cabinet confidence things that apply to decisions taken.  You can read it for yourself here;
> 
> https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-1.html
> 
> ...



And only those departments listed in schedule 1 of the act are subject to the ATI Act. 

Found here:  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-12.html#h-31


government institution means

(a) any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada, or any body or office,* listed in Schedule I,* and


(b) any parent Crown corporation, and any wholly-owned subsidiary of such a corporation, within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act; (institution fédérale)


Political parties, caucus, HofC and the Senate are not in that list.  So no.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Apr 2019)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> -- behaviours that are apparently unseen south of the border).
> :not-again:



This story is in Canadian politics. Why would you bring up the US? You've chided others, here and elsewhere for mentioning the US and Trump in Canadian politics, more than once. 

Has something changed to make you change your way of thinking? Or is it only you that gets to place America here? 

Just wondering. op:


----------



## Jarnhamar (12 Apr 2019)

Lumber said:
			
		

> Lots of reasons, but it mostly  boils down to that I like filling out the census.


Party aninal ;D

Just kidding. On the bright side if you change your mind and don't want to fill out the census anymore it's only up to a $500 instead of 3 months in jail. My only point of contention was the government forcing people to fill it out.  You mention it's a way to get the best data on your population, we've seen how biased the government can be with data- using it only when it suits them. That's off topic though.


----------



## Lumber (12 Apr 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> You must be an animal at parties  ;D
> 
> Just kidding. On the bright side if you change your mind and don't want to fill out the census anymore it's only up to a $500 instead of 3 months in jail. My only point of contention was the government forcing people to fill it out.  You mention it's a way to get the best data on your population, we've seen how biased the government can be with data- using it only when it suits them. That's off topic though.



The data is available to everyone. Regardless of what the government does with it, I want history to have access to it.


----------



## Journeyman (12 Apr 2019)

Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> This story is in Canadian politics. Why would you bring up the US?


It's a simple comparison;  you're torn apart by periodic behaviours in our Prime Minister that are the foundational bedrock of Trump's personality.... a political leader you clearly worship. 

The chiding occurred because that occurrence wasn't a comparison between the two leaders, but a question asked (in typical handwringing fashion) specifically about why Trudeau wasn't being *treated* the same (not about Trudeau's behaviour specifically)... in the US President thread... therefore, off topic.  And yes, I fully expect that difference to continue eluding you.

Regardless, expecting your response, I let it go.... until your dizzying intellect went that extra step to proclaim your belief in a Liberal policy of an "overwhelming desire to kill Canada," which drew me back into the inevitable train-wreck.
       :

Back to IGNORE


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Apr 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> FOIA is an American thing.
> 
> In Canada it is ATIP.



I stopped using ATIP outside of government because no one knew what I was talking about. I have done many both asking and providing.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Apr 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Unless someone's read something different I haven't seen (more than likely, given the speed of events unfolding), that's still an IF if we believe what The Canadian Press wrote:We know from the Speaker's decision that ...So, as Colin P said, $5 and a form _may_ free up that tidbit of information ...



The law is explicit, they must vote.


----------



## brihard (12 Apr 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> The law is explicit, they must vote.



The law says they must vote. It doesn’t explicitly state what the question must be. 49.8(1) says they “shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:”

So it does not say they must yes/no it at that time. If they voted and the result was to defer the matter to a party convention to put the question to the party more broadly, I don’t see that the law as written prohibits that. A vote was held ‘in respect of’ the question. Not liking the answer doesn’t make it illegitimate.

It’s helpful when considering questions of law to read the law in question, and to do it with an eye to detail and precision of meaning. While Chong’s Reform Act seemed like a political silver bullet for the opposition when Philpott filed her question on the matter, it doesn’t look like the facts are matching the wants on this once scrutinized.

October isn’t far. Patience.


----------



## The Bread Guy (12 Apr 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The law says they must vote. It doesn’t explicitly state what the question must be. 49.8(1) says they “shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:”


On the "what they're voting on", you're right.  On the how, though, the law says (49.8 (3)), "The vote of each caucus member, in each vote, is to be recorded"  so the record must be SOMEWHERE.


			
				Brihard said:
			
		

> October isn’t far. Patience.


Tick, tick, tick, indeed ...


----------



## brihard (12 Apr 2019)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> On the "what they're voting on", you're right.  On the how, though, the law says (49.8 (3)), "The vote of each caucus member, in each vote, is to be recorded"  so the record must be SOMEWHERE.Tick, tick, tick, indeed ...



Oh, absolutely. But as I mentioned a couple posts back, if the vote had simply not been hell, JP or JWR would likely have hauled that fact out by now. The statement to the speaker that it was voted to be deferred to the party convention is both completely plausible, and easily refutable had that not been the case. By all means ask for receipts, but I don't see any room for deception on that particular point. It would be absurd to even try.


----------



## Remius (12 Apr 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I stopped using ATIP outside of government because no one knew what I was talking about. I have done many both asking and providing.



Fair enough.  In a past life I was a an information officer at the privacy commission.  A small stint but very eye opening.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Apr 2019)

Back in the day, ATIPs cost $800 per hour of mainframe use......


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Apr 2019)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Back in the day, ATIPs cost $800 per hour of mainframe use......


And now, some are told to ONLY include time spent searching hard-copy files in the "time needed" box, not searching electronic files.


----------



## mariomike (13 Apr 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.



Regarding the 407, received this in my pension plan news,



> OMERS Announces Signing of Agreement for Acquisition of Stake in 407 International Inc.
> 
> April 05, 2019
> 
> ...


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (13 Apr 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Oh, absolutely. But as I mentioned a couple posts back, if the vote had simply not been hell, JP or JWR would likely have hauled that fact out by now. The statement to the speaker that it was voted to be deferred to the party convention is both completely plausible, and easily refutable had that not been the case. By all means ask for receipts, but I don't see any room for deception on that particular point. It would be absurd to even try.



Except that it is improper for a voter - any voter in any type of vote - to actually vote on behalf of someone without that right to vote. It is for members of Parliament here to vote individually as part of their role as MP on how they want their caucus to work. It's not for them to defer and act for the party. If they had differed by a few weeks/months so they could each consult their constituent - that is people at large in their riding - that would be OK as they represent those people - not the party.

Also, I feel that there is more blame to go around here, as we are three years into the mandate: Those recorded votes are supposed to be forwarded to the Speaker. So why has his office not contacted the various party leaders yet to inquire of the votes and their records? I think that is the reason he ruled the way he did: He also screwed up.


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Apr 2019)

Thanks for that OGBD.

I have been puzzling over the issue of who is responsible for administering the Parliament Act since the Speaker of the House of Commons said it wasn't his job.

If not his, then whose?

In some senses Parliament is the ultimate in self-regulating associations - like Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and such-like.  Their authority derives from them effectively policing themselves so that the courts don't have to step in.

Parliament says the courts can't regulate it.  But what if it won't regulate (I should say "effectively regulate") itself then it risks having itself regulated.


----------



## Haggis (8 May 2019)

Given that today the Public Prosecution Service of Canada elected to stay/withdraw (not sure which yet) the charge against VADM Norman, it will be interesting to see their next moves in this case.  Will a similar decision of "no likelihood of conviction" be rendered?  Will The DPP, who decided to stay/withdraw the Norman charge, now decide that a DPA is the way ahead for SNC-Lavailn?


----------



## Loachman (29 May 2019)

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-trial-corruption-bribery-1.5153429

SNC-Lavalin to stand trial on corruption charges, Quebec judge rules

Quebec engineering giant accused of bribing Libyan officials while Gadhafi in power

Jonathan Montpetit · CBC News · Posted: May 29, 2019 10:35 AM ET

There is enough evidence against SNC-Lavalin for the engineering corporation to be tried on fraud and bribery charges, a Quebec court judge ruled Wednesday. 

<snip>

Wednesday's court decision, handed down in Montreal, followed an extended preliminary inquiry into accusations that federal prosecutors filed in 2015. 

<snip>

Justice Claude Leblond had the option of dismissing the charges if he found there was no chance of a conviction.

<snip>

Asked whether a DPA was still possible, Roy said simply: "The director of public prosecutions has made a decision in that regard." 

<snip>

No date has yet been set for SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. The corporation returns to court June 7, when it will indicate whether it wants a trial by judge or jury.

<snip>

The new federal justice minister, David Lametti, has so far refused to comment on whether the government is still considering offering SNC-Lavalin a DPA. Legally, he can do so up until there is a verdict in the criminal case.

Lametti, on Wednesday, maintained his silence on the issue. He said he wanted to ensure his statements did not influence the court proceedings.

But the federal infrastructure minister, François-Philippe Champagne, reiterated the Liberal government's concerns about the damage a criminal trial could cause SNC-Lavalin. 

<snip>


----------



## dapaterson (2 Aug 2019)

In the"Nothing to see here, folks" department, on the Friday afternoon before the long weekend, with city council shut for the summer and the mayor out of town on vacation, the City of Ottawa has admitted that the consortium selected to build part of its light rail network which included SNC-Lavalin didn't meet the required technical threshold.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/documents-snc-lavalin-failed-technical-score-1.5234767



> Those scores arrived in the mail from the city clerk's office Friday — the same day the city released the scores to councillors in a memo answering an inquiry from Coun. Diane Deans, a major critic of the LRT Stage 2 procurement process.
> 
> The 37-page memo includes a description of how a bidder could continue in the process after failing the technical evaluation.
> 
> ...


----------



## Remius (2 Aug 2019)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> In the"Nothing to see here, folks" department, on the Friday afternoon before the long weekend, with city council shut for the summer and the mayor out of town on vacation, the City of Ottawa has admitted that the consortium selected to build part of its light rail network which included SNC-Lavalin didn't meet the required technical threshold.
> 
> https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/documents-snc-lavalin-failed-technical-score-1.5234767



SNC signs all around near my place where they are building.  Not much work happening though.


----------



## brihard (2 Aug 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> SNC signs all around near my place where they are building.  Not much work happening though.



Lots of land clearance and gravel pouring going on down near the airport parkway... I suspect they’re bulldozing the actual route first and then the hard building will start. If stage 1 is an indication, it’ll start testing in 2030.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Aug 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> If stage 1 is an indication, it’ll start testing in 2030.



#Optimist


----------



## Cloud Cover (14 Aug 2019)

Breach of Conflict of Interest: http://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/ReportsAndPublications/Pages/TrudeauIIReport.aspx

Despite all the outrage, this likely changes nothing, and he will probably survive.  

Note that once again, the PCO and PMO is continuing to withhold information, and forbade at least 9 witnesses with evidence from providing information to the investigation. Also note that Trudeau received the report on July 19, was able to make submissions on the report, and that in there interim period a CBC journalist (and known Trudeau sympathizer Aaron Wherry) released a book that touches on this matter, and that CBC itself has been promoting the book including a segment a few nights ago on The National.


----------



## ballz (14 Aug 2019)

" Unbeknownst to the Attorney General at that time, legal opinions from two former Supreme Court justices, retained by SNC-Lavalin, had been reviewed by the Prime Minister's Office and other ministerial offices. Meanwhile, both SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister's Office had approached the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to participate in the matter."

That is news to me. That's really rigging the game ain't it, quite damning. The whole executive summary is damning but it's essentially everything we already knew, with the Commissioner essentially just agreeing with the broad consensus.

Somehow, this has not sunk the Liberals. It's pretty scary.


----------



## Remius (14 Aug 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> " Unbeknownst to the Attorney General at that time, legal opinions from two former Supreme Court justices, retained by SNC-Lavalin, had been reviewed by the Prime Minister's Office and other ministerial offices. Meanwhile, both SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister's Office had approached the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to participate in the matter."
> 
> That is news to me. That's really rigging the game ain't it, quite damning. The whole executive summary is damning but it's essentially everything we already knew, with the Commissioner essentially just agreeing with the broad consensus.
> 
> Somehow, this has not sunk the Liberals. It's pretty scary.



This won’t be enough to sink him.


----------



## ballz (14 Aug 2019)

Watching the news there is some pretty tough commentary from a Democracy Watch representative... I'll admit, I don't know much about the organization or how biased it is... but essentially he's saying that at minimum, if the RCMP don't investigate the PM for obstruction of justice at this point, then those who make those decisions need to publicly explain to Canadians their reasoning. I agree with this. I am genuinely concerned as to why the RCMP didn't investigate before, but given what the Ethics Commissioner has concluded, including the fact that Trudeau and team were loading the deck to advise JWR the way he wanted her to be advised, I don't know how they can't...


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Aug 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> Watching the news there is some pretty tough commentary from a Democracy Watch representative... I'll admit, I don't know much about the organization or how biased it is... but essentially he's saying that at minimum, if the RCMP don't investigate the PM for obstruction of justice at this point, then those who make those decisions need to publicly explain to Canadians their reasoning. I agree with this. I am genuinely concerned as to why the RCMP didn't investigate before, but given what the Ethics Commissioner has concluded, including the fact that Trudeau and team were loading the deck to advise JWR the way he wanted her to be advised, I don't know how they can't...



You do realize the RCMP - at least much of the leadership - are in the pockets of the Liberal party....


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Aug 2019)

Excellent opportunity for the "experts" to do the right thing to maintain the credibility of the institutions.

Or not.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Aug 2019)

The PM is about to speak from Niagara On The Lake.  Will be interesting hear what he has to say...


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Aug 2019)

Justin Trudeau's defence of his government: hey, don't worry your heads about any ethical or legal improprieties--we're doing a great job creating jobs so everything's just peachy keen. That, dear friends, is Trump in a nutshell.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Jed (14 Aug 2019)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Justin Trudeau's defence of his government: hey, don't worry your heads about any ethical or legal improprieties--we're doing a great job creating jobs so everything's just peachy keen. That, dear friends, is Trump in a nutshell.
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa


With a key difference being that Trump policies seem to be working economically for their country and Trudeau’s policies crashing Canada’s economy, especially in the West.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 Aug 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> With a key difference being that Trump policies seem to be working economically for their country and Trudeau’s policies crashing Canada’s economy, especially in the West.



May want to re-think that: Stocks Slide as Bonds Signal Rising Concern About Growth (NYTimes)


----------



## Jed (14 Aug 2019)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> May want to re-think that: Stocks Slide as Bonds Signal Rising Concern About Growth (NYTimes)


Only since the Hong Kong situation reared up. The entire world is going to feel the effects of that.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (14 Aug 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Only since the Hong Kong situation reared up. The entire world is going to feel the effects of that.



Nothing to do with Hong Kong. Its one of the side effects of the trade war between the US and China.



> Trade-war worries hammered financial markets again on Wednesday as data from Germany and China showed trouble for manufacturing-reliant economies, while the bond market renewed fears of an American recession.
> 
> Stocks and commodities tumbled in Europe and the United States as risk-averse investors raced to the safety of government bonds, pushing bond prices sharply higher and yields — which move in the opposite direction — to low levels not seen in years.


----------



## Jed (14 Aug 2019)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Nothing to do with Hong Kong. Its one of the side effects of the trade war between the US and China.


Don’t be obtuse. The Hong Kong situation is all related to these events, not a US/China thing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Aug 2019)

Having a different interpretation or weighting of the effects of the moving parts of international events is not "obtuse".


----------



## Jed (14 Aug 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Having a different interpretation or weighting of the effects of the moving parts of international events is not "obtuse".


Fair enough. Obtuse is not really the correct word.


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 Aug 2019)

I am not a fan of the PM, but I am not sure what people expected him to say.  Sorry was never an option for this fellow. 

I think he did well to take it in and repeat that he takes responsibility for the findings.  

I think he played this well, much to my disappointment, and will have helped usher this into a back pages, and distant memory very soon. 

The torch now lays with Scheer to keep this story relevant too Canadians and show a solid footing as a parliamentarian but not grandstanding and being overly dramatic about it.  

Scheer, play the facts; and facts alone; and show the country how you are better; and are in fact the positive and excellent alternative to Trudeau I hope you are.


----------



## Jed (14 Aug 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> I am not a fan of the PM, but I am not sure what people expected him to say.  Sorry was never an option for this fellow.
> 
> I think he did well to take it in and repeat that he takes responsibility for the findings.
> 
> ...



What is blindingly obvious to all but the most partisan of people is that Obstruction of Justice has occurred by the Prime Minister. This should be an unforgivable crime in our Democracy. If people sluff that off, this democratic society is eventually doomed.

Open the door to the new Canadian Banana Republic.


----------



## Kat Stevens (14 Aug 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> What is blindingly obvious to all but the most partisan of people is that Obstruction of Justice has occurred by the Prime Minister. This should be an unforgivable crime in our Democracy. If people sluff that off, this democratic society is eventually doomed.
> 
> Open the door to the new Canadian Banana Republic.



He'll be fined an extra large New York Fries poutine and a regular Coke, and carry on doing whatever it is he actually does when he's not on vacation or shopping for socks on line.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Aug 2019)

I wonder if Gerry Butts ever gets used to being thrown under the bus by Trudeau?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Aug 2019)

Looking forward to the media pundits arguing over whether "obstruction of justice" occurred.  Also curious to see which media agencies will treat this as a one-day-and-done issue.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Aug 2019)

Consider it done then. People apparently don’t care one way or the other. 
I’m no fan of JT, or JWR, but I think that if it’s true that she took a principled stand, then she did her job as far as that goes. No more and no less.


----------



## AbdullahD (15 Aug 2019)

Halifax Tar said:
			
		

> ..The torch now lays with Scheer to keep this story relevant too Canadians and show a solid footing as a parliamentarian but not grandstanding and being overly dramatic about it.
> 
> Scheer, play the facts; and facts alone; and show the country how you are better; and are in fact the positive and excellent alternative to Trudeau I hope you are.



It is sad, how those who lean left simply do not care about Trudeau's.. corruption. Or well at least in circles I run in.. I have brought it up and the replys are basic and ignorant "He is better then a conservative, we have to re elect him because he is better then Scheer because scheer may do blah blah blah"

Annoys me a fair bit, how much people do not care >.< 

Abdullah


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Aug 2019)

Saw this on Twitter: “Canada is a place where journalists who cover politics will argue that the Prime Minister breaking a federal law is no big deal and that nobody really cares.”


----------



## QV (15 Aug 2019)

The LPC has most of the media backing them.  If only facts were reported, and less opinion, the public would make their own judgement.  Presently, some of the media only cover what they feel they need to in order to maintain the appearance of non-bias, then add all kinds of op-eds to shape public opinion.  Katie Telford spoke of having favourable op-eds on tap in the SNC scandal, Catherine McKenna talked about if you say it loud enough and long enough "everyone will _totally_believe it!".  I have not seen a steady stream of media playing the PM's lies when he publicly stated there was no influence or pressure on the AG.  Just Twitter.  Is this not a major scandal?  The fourth estate is on it's last legs IMHO.  Only because of the internet and social media are we able to see the contradictions, otherwise it would be difficult to know any better.  Warren Kinsella commented on Twitter the Dion report is even more damning than the Mueller report.         

"Fake news media is the enemy of the people".  I don't think you can argue with that.  The question is; which outlets are peddling misinformation and when?  Is Trump right?


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> The LPC has most of the media backing them.  If only facts were reported, and less opinion, the public would make their own judgement.  Presently, some of the media only cover what they feel they need to in order to maintain the appearance of non-bias, then add all kinds of op-eds to shape public opinion.  Katie Telford spoke of having favourable op-eds on tap in the SNC scandal, Catherine McKenna talked about if you say it loud enough and long enough "everyone will _totally_believe it!".  I have not seen a steady stream of media playing the PM's lies when he publicly stated there was no influence or pressure on the AG.  Just Twitter.  Is this not a major scandal?  The fourth estate is on it's last legs IMHO.  Only because of the internet and social media are we able to see the contradictions, otherwise it would be difficult to know any better.  Warren Kinsella commented on Twitter the Dion report is even more damning than the Mueller report.
> 
> "Fake news media is the enemy of the people".  I don't think you can argue with that.  The question is; which outlets are peddling misinformation and when?  Is Trump right?



So how is this MSM outlet backing trudeau? 

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/trudeau-sought-to-influence-wilson-raybould-violated-ethics-rules-ethics-commissioner-1.4549332

I read this piece and saw nothing that says "look away nothing to see here".  pretty factual actually

How about Robyn urback, here with an OP Ed on the affair...(yes an opinion piece)

_A Prime Minister's Office drunk on its own arrogance: Robyn Urback_
https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion

Maybe people should actually take a look at what is being said by these "supporters" before judging

Wasn't hard to find either.

Fake news might be the enemy of the people.  I just don't think Trump actually knows what fake news actually is though.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2019)

>Annoys me a fair bit, how much people do not care 

Are you certain?  Words to the effect of "He is better then a conservative, we have to re elect him because he is better then Scheer because scheer may do blah blah blah" sound like people who care, but are rationalizing their decisions (or preferences) to favour other factors with more weight.

A host of opinion writers have recently taken to embarrassing their reputations by asserting that everyone who supports Trump is complicit in "white supremacy", or the like.  But people have many reasons, not ranked by universally prescribed weights, for favouring politicians and parties.

What I find interesting is that in the comparison between fact (it happened) and fiction (future things imagined), fiction often wins.


----------



## Navy_Pete (15 Aug 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> The LPC has most of the media backing them.  If only facts were reported, and less opinion, the public would make their own judgement.  Presently, some of the media only cover what they feel they need to in order to maintain the appearance of non-bias, then add all kinds of op-eds to shape public opinion.  Katie Telford spoke of having favourable op-eds on tap in the SNC scandal, Catherine McKenna talked about if you say it loud enough and long enough "everyone will _totally_believe it!".  I have not seen a steady stream of media playing the PM's lies when he publicly stated there was no influence or pressure on the AG.  Just Twitter.  Is this not a major scandal?  The fourth estate is on it's last legs IMHO.  Only because of the internet and social media are we able to see the contradictions, otherwise it would be difficult to know any better.  Warren Kinsella commented on Twitter the Dion report is even more damning than the Mueller report.
> 
> "Fake news media is the enemy of the people".  I don't think you can argue with that.  The question is; which outlets are peddling misinformation and when?  Is Trump right?



I keep hearing that the Liberals have the backing of MSM, but that's inconsistent with what I've actually been reading in the same MSM.  CBC has had consistently damning reports on the handling of the current government on SNC and the JWR scandal, MMWIG, the electoral reforms, etc. G&M lead with a lot of the damning reports on the Adm Norman trial. National Post had similar coverage.  At the same time they all were critical of the Conservatives over things like Scheer pleading ignorance to the white supremacist leanings for the Western convoy and other things, and in Ontario the previous provincial government and current Ford govt have both been taking to task. The Sun is a bit of a rag, but even then, their support isn't unconditional.

Generally I find the news articles reasonably free of obvious bias. Op eds are another story, but even there if they are critical, it's generally for a good reason and based on facts, with no party safe from criticism from their supporters when they drop the ball.  I really don't buy the line that MSM is biased, and find the fringe media can be shockingly loose with facts and are effectively PR for a specific political group. You can't just look at op eds and say that the whole MSM is biased; their entire point is to give someone with an inherently biased opinion a platform.

Polls show Canadians are overall socially liberal and fiscally on the conservative side, which is why even our Conservative party is more centrist that even the US 'left wing' party.  I think people confuse having liberal/conservative views with supporting the Liberal or Conservative party, and seem to think that reporting on issues that reflect the centrist values of the average Canadian is somehow supporting one or the other.

People have been predicting the end of the fourth estate since the advent of radio, and most internet columnists still seem to be shooting for a gig with the NYT or whatever.  Smart papers business models are evolving, and if you look at outfits like the Guardian, have been successful at adopting an increasing number of online subscribers to offset the bottom line. They have done that by going with a low dollar value volume approach, which works with the internet when you can tap into a large international audience.

TL;DR: Calling BS on MSM bias; put up facts to support.


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2019)

Bias is subjective, as is perception of bias.  I don't even particularly trust those who claim to measure bias, because they necessarily start with a subjective definition of what they are going to measure.

Bias is easy to detect in non-opinion journalism.  Look to the prior premises taken for granted (popular myths, fashionable positions) and the modifiers used.

A paper napkin theory for bias: each person has it; major media agencies all have it, in their institutional culture if not as a matter of policy.  It applies broadly to political alignments, and narrowly to specific issues.  Weights are not equal, so a political party on the wrong side of an issue can find itself criticized by an otherwise favourably-inclined agency.  There is always a tipping point beyond which those favoured become indefensible.  The existence of criticism is not disproof of bias.  Rather, the threshold at which criticism starts is itself a measure of bias.


----------



## mariomike (15 Aug 2019)

For reference to the discussion,

Media Bias [Merged]
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/18397.100
55 pages.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Aug 2019)

Opinion pieces in MSM yesterday on SNC-Lavalin:



> Justin Trudeau still won’t apologize for his SNC mess
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-justin-trudeau-still-wont-apologize-for-his-snc-mess/
> 
> John Ivison: PM's defence to ethics czar reveals his nasty political side
> ...



And two good news stories in G&M:



> SNC-Lavalin affair began with 2016 meeting between Trudeau, company
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-snc-lavalin-affair-began-with-2016-meeting-between-trudeau-company/
> 
> Trudeau violated ethics _law_ [emphasis added] by pressing Wilson-Raybould over SNC-Lavalin deal, Ethics Commissioner rules
> https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ethics-commissioner-rules-trudeau-inappropriately-pressed-wilson/



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Brad Sallows (15 Aug 2019)

Looks like things are on a knife edge; waiting to see whether a preference cascade starts (blows over, or becomes AdScam redux).


----------



## QV (15 Aug 2019)

Specific to Trudeau, I think what we are seeing this week is reporting because they have to, not necessarily because they want to.  As we get closer to election day I think we will see a flurry of positive reporting to diminish all the negatives in the last many months, just in time for everyone to head to the polls. 

This hypothesis of mine isn't all encompassing, it's not everyone, but enough involved to sway public opinion.  In many instances public opinion doesn't have to sway much to change the outcome.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Aug 2019)

I saw this meme on Facebook this morning and thought it was hilarious!


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> Specific to Trudeau, I think what we are seeing this week is reporting because they have to, not necessarily because they want to.  As we get closer to election day I think we will see a flurry of positive reporting to diminish all the negatives in the last many months, just in time for everyone to head to the polls.
> 
> This hypothesis of mine isn't all encompassing, it's not everyone, but enough involved to sway public opinion.  In many instances public opinion doesn't have to sway much to change the outcome.



I think it might be a case of covering Scheer and the CPC Team blunders more.  We'll see more of that.  More of a "this is your alternative, not sure you are going to like it" kind of thing.  

Trudeau is wearing thin on me but I have yet to warm up to Scheer.   I'll be very interested to see full platforms from both sides.


----------



## Jarnhamar (15 Aug 2019)

[quote author=Remius] 

Trudeau is wearing thin on me but I have yet to warm up to Scheer.  
[/quote]



> Mario Dion’s report, which found that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act by improperly pressuring Wilson-Raybould to prevent the Montreal-based company from being prosecuted in a bribery case.



The guy pressures and harasses one of his members to try and stop her from preventing a shady as shit company from being procecusted and it just causes him to wear thin on you? 
What would Trudeau have to do to upset you?


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> The guy pressures and harasses one of his members to try and stop her from preventing a shady as crap company from being procecusted and it just causes him to wear thin on you?
> What would Trudeau have to do to upset you?



He's been wearing thin on me for while.  I'm not a rabid partisan one way or another so politics rarely upset me. 

It highlights my point as to why Trudeau might actually survive this with at least a minority.   It isn't enough to get people that upset, sorry but that is just the way things are going.  I give this maybe two weeks before it goes away again unless the RCMP lay charges.  There really isn't much more in there that wasn't there before a few months ago.  Nothing we didn't already know or suspect. 

He's got several things going for him:

Support in Quebec (where people seem to side with him on this)
He's portrayed as the anti-Trump.  That seems to play well for him in Canada
Weak opposition
People believe or drink the kool aid of what he says.  (Jon Robson this morning described him as Trump with a smile and I think wasn't far off the mark).

I don't like Trudeau
I don't like Scheer

It will boil down to who I dislike less.  I don't think I am the only one who will vote that way.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Aug 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> He's been wearing thin on me for while.  I'm not a rabid partisan one way or another so politics rarely upset me.
> 
> It highlights my point as to why Trudeau might actually survive this with at least a minority.   It isn't enough to get people that upset, sorry but that is just the way things are going.  I give this maybe two weeks before it goes away again unless the RCMP lay charges.  There really isn't much more in there that wasn't there before a few months ago.  Nothing we didn't already know or suspect.
> 
> ...



I disagree that it isn't enough to get people upset.  This is the same crap that got the Liberals in hot water last time they formed a Government.  Sponsorship Scandal 2.0 and regardless of what the media says, this is going to affect Trudeau at the voting booth.


----------



## QV (15 Aug 2019)

I find the conduct of this government appalling.  I am not sure what bothers me more; the conduct, or the perceived public indifference (which I base on his present polling).  I blame the media for this indifference (as I see it).


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> I disagree that it isn't enough to get people upset.  This is the same crap that got the Liberals in hot water last time they formed a Government.  Sponsorship Scandal 2.0 and regardless of what the media says, this is going to affect Trudeau at the voting booth.



I said it isn’t enough to get them THAT upset.

Remember that Paul Martin still won the election with a minority a year after adscam broke.  Also several factors played into that that are not currently at play this time around.

I expect it will hurt them at the voting both.  It needs to happen as that is as that is the only thing politicians understand.  But I suspect that JT will still be PM.  Probably a minority.


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> I find the conduct of this government appalling.  I am not sure what bothers me more; the conduct, or the perceived public indifference (which I base on his present polling).  I blame the media for this indifference (as I see it).



Agreed.  But I think, QV, that when we talk about ethics commissioner findings and committee appearances etc etc, most Canadians think of these things as political administrative things.  If the RCMP lays charges then maybe that will wake some people up as that is something they understand or can relate to.


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (15 Aug 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> I said it isn’t enough to get them THAT upset.
> 
> Remember that Paul Martin still won the election with a minority a year after adscam broke.  Also several factors played into that that are not currently at play this time around.
> 
> I expect it will hurt them at the voting both.  It needs to happen as that is as that is the only thing politicians understand.  But I suspect that JT will still be PM.  Probably a minority.



We shall see.  I'm pretty disenchanted either way because while Trudeau really rubs me the wrong way and like you, I don't really hold Scheer in high regard either.

The guy is what I would classify in Football Coach Terms as, "A Bag of Milk"

He is yet another career politician (like Trudeau) with no real world experience or actual accomplishments outside of politics.  In other words, he is a snake oil salesman and charlatan and doesn't represent me in the least.  He has been an MP since he was 25 for god sakes.


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2019)

Humphrey Bogart said:
			
		

> The guy is what I would classify in Football Coach Terms as, "A Bag of Milk"



Lol.  I’m using that...


----------



## QV (15 Aug 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Agreed.  But I think, QV, that when we talk about ethics commissioner findings and committee appearances etc etc, most Canadians think of these things as political administrative things.  If the RCMP lays charges then maybe that will wake some people up as that is something they understand or can relate to.



The RCMP investigated Nigel Wright in the Mike Duffy affair.  Are they going to investigate this?


----------



## Remius (15 Aug 2019)

QV said:
			
		

> The RCMP investigated Nigel Wright in the Mike Duffy affair.  Are they going to investigate this?



No clue.  But that had an impact.


----------



## MarkOttawa (15 Aug 2019)

RCMP also investigated VADM Mark Norman. One does not exactly see them as a whiz-bang agency for dealing with white collar crime.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Loachman (15 Aug 2019)

A bit of a tease, but more encouraging than complete silence:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-snc-report-examining-carefully-1.5247119

RCMP looking at SNC-Lavalin affair 'carefully,' promise to take actions 'as required'

Catharine Tunney · CBC News · Posted: Aug 14, 2019 4:43 PM ET

The RCMP says it's reviewing the facts of the SNC-Lavalin affair "carefully" in the wake of a new damning report from the ethics commissioner that found Prime Minister Justin Trudeau violated the Conflict of Interest Act, following renewed calls from the Opposition to investigate.

"The RCMP is examining this matter carefully with all available information and will take appropriate actions as required," spokesperson Chantal Payette said in a statement to CBC News Wednesday.

"It would be inappropriate for us to provide anymore comments on this matter at this time."

The statement marks a noticeable shift in language for the RCMP, which usually declines any comment unless and until charges are laid. Earlier this year, the force said it wouldn't comment on calls for a criminal probe into the Trudeau government's actions in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

<snip>


----------



## suffolkowner (15 Aug 2019)

You would think the RCMP would be a bit snake bit by now to think they can go after the PM. I mean they caught Mulroney with his hand in the cookie jar and it still cost us


----------



## Haggis (15 Aug 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> RCMP looking at SNC-Lavalin affair 'carefully,' promise to take actions 'as required'



I doubt they will gain or be granted access to any more information than the ethics commissioner was able to obtain so I don't see the point of this show, except for the PMO to be able to say "the PM and our office  did nothing wrong and everything we did, even if supposedly unethical, has not been proven in court and was in the best interests of Québec Canada."


----------



## ballz (15 Aug 2019)

How do search warrants work when it's for documents covered by cabinet confidence?

I find it hard to believe the threshold for a warrant hasn't been met, given that at this point we've already reached the balance of probability.


----------



## Cloud Cover (15 Aug 2019)

Sections 38 and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act allow the PCO to designate documents and other material as Cabinet Privileged ( by certificate). The certificate describes what the documents are, but not the content. Courts have very little sway over this- they can examine the certificate but not the documents.


----------



## Jarnhamar (16 Aug 2019)

[quote author=Humphrey Bogart] 

The guy is what I would classify in Football Coach Terms as, "A Bag of Milk"

[/quote]

A bag of milk is not very exciting until you're a parent then you'll find yourself driving across down to a 24 hour store at 4am


----------



## Remius (16 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> A bag of milk is not very exciting until you're a parent then you'll find yourself driving across down to a 24 hour store at 4am



That is actually very tedious....exciting isn’t the word I would use lol.


----------



## ballz (16 Aug 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Sections 38 and 39 of the Canada Evidence Act allow the PCO to designate documents and other material as Cabinet Privileged ( by certificate). The certificate describes what the documents are, but not the content. Courts have very little sway over this- they can examine the certificate but not the documents.



We have no legal mechanism that if the highest, most powerful piece of our executive government was up to no good, that the judicial branch could intervene?

Wasn't the judge in the Norman case acting as the honest broker and reviewing documents that were covered by cabinet confidence to see what was relevant to the case and could be given to the defense?


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Aug 2019)

The whole purpose of Cabinet privilege, where it is applied correctly, is to prevent disclosure especially in  cases like this. I suppose the key is, was privilege applied correctly. In that regard, on motion a court can order a review of the description of documents and evidence withheld, but YMMV. 

Public Prosecution Service Desktop: 

"Section 39 of the CEA acts as an absolute bar to the disclosure of Cabinet Confidences as defined in s. 39(2). Whereas a judge assesses and makes the determination regarding disclosure or protection of information under ss. 37 and 38 of the CEA, the determination of Cabinet Confidences under s. 39 is made by the Clerk of the Privy Council or a Cabinet Minister. Where a certificate is filed under s. 39 certifying that the information constitutes a Cabinet Confidence, a court must refuse disclosure of that information without examination or hearing of the information.Objections under s. 39 must be made in writing, certifying that the information constitutes a Cabinet Confidence."

"The consultation process described above also applies where an accused seeks disclosure of information which has been certified as a Cabinet Confidence. The Clerk’s Certificate produced in court simply describes the protected documents without revealing their contents. This Certificate is evidence that the listed documents are protected from disclosure. A court may not review the Cabinet documents listed in the Certificate. Although the court is not entitled to go behind a proper certificate filed under s. 39, the court can review the certificate to determine if, on its face, it complies with this section."


----------



## brihard (21 Aug 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> The whole purpose of Cabinet privilege, where it is applied correctly, is to prevent disclosure especially in  cases like this. I suppose the key is, was privilege applied correctly. In that regard, on motion a court can order a review of the description of documents and evidence withheld, but YMMV.
> 
> Public Prosecution Service Desktop:
> 
> ...



The check and balance on this particular power of the executive is ultimately the electoral one.


----------



## FJAG (21 Aug 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The check and balance on this particular power of the executive is ultimately the electoral one.



That only works if they find out. The system is tilted towards the public never knowing the truth.

 :cheers:


----------



## Humphrey Bogart (21 Aug 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> The check and balance on this particular power of the executive is ultimately the electoral one.



Pretty much and there are plenty of examples around the world who give us some very good examples:









			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> That only works if they find out. The system is tilted towards the public never knowing the truth.
> 
> :cheers:



I've learned that many/most people will believe what THEY WANT TO BELIEVE, evidence to the contrary be damned.  Especially when it comes to politics.  I grew up in a Socialist/Left Wing Political Riding.  Joseph Stalin could return from the dead and run for office there and he would win.  All he would need to do would be put that little orange banner under his name.


----------



## Cloud Cover (21 Aug 2019)

I think there are some things that ought to be protected by Cabinet Privilege, and some things that are not. Defence, National Security, Foreign Policy, trade negotiations, economic issues, budget planning, human resources, immigration, some natural resources discussions - certainly. Discussions regarding manipulating, coercing, bullying and covering up interference of a criminal prosecution- probably not.  I suppose a court could attempt to issue some guidance, but the legislation is very clear and broad and that's what we have today.  

I would welcome any current political party to put forth a platform that tackles this issue, which in fact might challenge the current government to defend the status quo. A very serious "drain the swamp" effort ...


----------



## MilEME09 (21 Aug 2019)

Can the Supreme court override cabinet confidance?


----------



## FJAG (21 Aug 2019)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Can the Supreme court override cabinet confidance?



In short no. The SCC interprets the law and does not make it. The provision respecting cabinet confidences is fairly clear. A court has only the powers to review which have been set out above. The only thing the SCC can do is determine if a judge below properly exercised the limited authority he/she has.

 :cheers:


----------



## mariomike (21 Aug 2019)

Saw this in today's news,



> CTV News
> August 21, 2019
> 
> Liberals unhurt, Tories not helped by scathing SNC-Lavalin report: poll
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Aug 2019)

Perhaps today's announcement that the ethics committee voted against having the Commissioner testify will garner some reaction:

Liberal MPs on ethics committee vote down opposition motion for Mario Dion to testify on Trudeau
CBC

Conservative MP Lisa Raitt's motion to demand CBC reporter hand over recordings defeated by committee vote


----------



## OldSolduer (21 Aug 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps today's announcement that the ethics committee voted against having the Commissioner testify will garner some reaction:
> 
> Liberal MPs on ethics committee vote down opposition motion for Mario Dion to testify on Trudeau
> CBC
> ...



Move along, nothing to see here..... 

So at the Dedication of The Memorial, a wreath appeared with guess what corporate name on it????


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2019)

Too bad we don't have Nadler and Schiff working here.


----------



## Remius (22 Aug 2019)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Saw this in today's news,



Yeah, it confirms a bit of what I was saying earlier. 

This is old news, Canadians have moved on, people made up their minds months ago. 

I was also critical at the time of Andrew Scheer's performance then and now. 

He jumped the gun back then calling for the PM to resign.  Because of that he has nowhere to go and is making white noise about it now.  He seems to a have moved away to policy issue as him repeating himself wasn't getting traction and may have hurt him.  

He would have been far more effective had he waited for the resignation calls.


----------



## Jed (22 Aug 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Yeah, it confirms a bit of what I was saying earlier.
> 
> This is old news, Canadians have moved on, people made up their minds months ago.
> 
> ...


Yes, isn’t it amazing how hindsight is always 20/20.


----------



## Remius (22 Aug 2019)

Jed said:
			
		

> Yes, isn’t it amazing how hindsight is always 20/20.



The difference is that it was obvious at the time when he started with the resignation calls right out of the starting block.  He should have waited.


----------



## Jed (22 Aug 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> The difference is that it was obvious at the time when he started with the resignation calls right out of the starting block.  He should have waited.


I guess he didn’t have Gerald Butt’s sage advice to guide him, lol.


----------



## Remius (22 Aug 2019)

Not sure who is advising him but I am sure they are all trying to figure out why none of this is gaining them any points.  

I think there are a few things that have insulated the Trudeau and the LPC.

1. They settled the Norman case.  If this went to trial it would have revived some things.

2. The Ethics commissioner is a bit of lame duck (The LPC named him for a reason I guess) and the report came out before the election is called.  Trudeau actually makes his response into a non response that looks like he's sorry but not really.  Wording was key in his statement and some people fell for it.  It is almost as if a reset button was pushed.  Not sure how to explain that. 

3. Lame opponents. They can turn it around but they better start getting substantive.  Scheer is getting collateral damage from the Ford government and events south of us.  Enough that moderate voters either won't turn up or will just bite the bullet and vote for the devil they know.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Aug 2019)

Remius said:
			
		

> Not sure who is advising him but I am sure they are all trying to figure out why none of this is gaining them any points.
> 
> I think there are a few things that have insulated the Trudeau and the LPC.
> 
> ...



There's that, or just plain old overload.

People have gotten so sick of the shenanigans and criminality of the liberals, they no longer pay attention. Their minds are already made up that they won't vote for them, so everything coming down the pipe about them is just noise they don't want to listen to.

Numbers don't move for a variety of reasons. Polls and their biases, faux neutrality and skewed numbers don't impress people anymore, so they are not participating. The polls show non-movement. So what? It's not like there's any truth there anyway.

The MSM has been effectively bribed and the populous no longer cares about their opinion and skewed reporting. They can state trudeau is neck and neck and everyone knows it's a lie. Nobody cares, they have other more important things to do.

As to the debates? Those are so stacked as to become comical. Many will probably tune in for about 20 minutes, see the biases and turn it off. If they watch at all. They won't amount to much and nothing new will be stated. Just lots of finger pointing.

People have just gone quiet with a seething anger that has made them resolute that they won't be voting liberal and they are beyond the sway of the carnival PR that's happening. They know how they are voting and have moved on with their lives, leaving the barking seals to rouse their tiny corners of conflict.

Just my  :2c:


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2019)

>Liberals unhurt, Tories not helped by scathing SNC-Lavalin report: poll

I could wish this fresh example would put to rest the endless mock bewilderment some people express as "I don't understand how anyone can vote for him/them", but that's improbable.  I can guess that some people preparing to vote LPC remain outraged on the basis of some imagined bugbear that anyone would consider voting CPC - self-reflection is beyond them.


----------



## Remius (22 Aug 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Liberals unhurt, Tories not helped by scathing SNC-Lavalin report: poll
> 
> I could wish this fresh example would put to rest the endless mock bewilderment some people express as "I don't understand how anyone can vote for him/them", but that's improbable.  I can guess that some people preparing to vote LPC remain outraged on the basis of some imagined bugbear that anyone would consider voting CPC - self-reflection is beyond them.



 A lot of people don't want Scheer as leader.  whether it is fear or policy disagreements or whatever.  He isn't doing it for the CPC.  

Best case for me is a weakened slim Liberal minority.  I don't think they have the skill that Harper had at managing a minority government and they will screw up at some point again and they'll lose the following election. 

Trudeau gets a minority.  Scheer resigns, probably stays as a member (he really has not done anything else and has been an MP since his twenties.  Someone more effective is chosen, McKay or Ambrose. 

Trudeau forced to play along with others.  Including the opposition forcing Trudeau and the LPC to launch an inquiry into SNC.  That is a gift to the CPC as Trudeau will be a sitting PM while this happens.  

LPC Gvt falls after a year a maybe.  

CPC wins a majority under a better leader, possibly for two terms. 

If Scheer wins a minority he'll be out in a year as well and the Liberals will likely get power again.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2019)

>A lot of people don't want Scheer as leader. 

I know.  That is how some will choose their vote: not as "for" Trudeau, but as "against" Scheer.  Others will be "for" Trudeau, or "for" LPC.  Each person's reason is his own.

But I could wish the people with pulpits would stop all the fucking hypothetical fear-mongering and hypocritical finger pointing.

What has Scheer done that is illegal or unethical?

The story so far: the LPC is beholden to SNC for donations; some of those donations were illegal and had to be returned.  SNC lobbied hard for a legislative provision to ease their oncoming plight; the LPC passed it (including following advice to bury it omnibus-fashion).  When the prosecutor declined to use the provision, internal pressure was applied to the AG.  We heard that the (unelected) staff in the PMO didn't care much about the Harper-era law that constrained them, and that they believed they could pave public opinion with some tame op-eds.  And in the end, the guy who so often manages to apologize to one group or another in place of the people who did the dirty coughs up a variation of his template for things in which he did the dirty: "I respect your view, but I disagree with it".

Some people call what happened obstruction of justice (I am not sure if it fully fits the legal definition).  Suppose it is.  Should a leader be removed for it, or not?


----------



## Jarnhamar (22 Aug 2019)

[quote author=Brad Sallows]

What has Scheer done that is illegal or unethical?[/quote]
Nothing. He's not a train wreck so people aren't interested.



> Should a leader be removed for it, or not?



I caught a general talking about that neo-nazi MCpl and how his actions don't reflect the ethics and values of the CAF.
100%

But then I thought about what Trudeau did. How would we react to a CO, or General, who behaved the same way Trudeau did with his ethic violations? More so the harassment and intimidation of a subordinate and trying to pressure them to help someone guilty of something avoid charges?

How would the CAF treat someone doing the shit he does?


----------



## Remius (22 Aug 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >
> 
> Some people call what happened obstruction of justice (I am not sure if it fully fits the legal definition).  Suppose it is.  Should a leader be removed for it, or not?



Excellent points Brad. 

And no charges as of yet.  None proven in a court of law at any rate.

Do we wait for that then remove?

What would be the mechanism for his removal?  One way or another?

Does caucus support him? Seems so. 

That leaves the people at election time.  “The people are never wrong” is the saying.  PMs can be removed if the people want it.  Do they?  Not sure.


----------



## Brad Sallows (22 Aug 2019)

>What would be the mechanism for his removal?

Parliament has the power.  Practically, Parliament won't use that power.  One of the benefits of living in a full democracy rather than a flawed one.

>That leaves the people at election time. 

As it should.  Ultimately, Canadians are the custodians of "Canadian Values" (whatever they may be) and how the values are ranked.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Aug 2019)

“If Scheer wins a minority he'll be out in a year as well and the Liberals will likely get power again.”

I wonder if just because a party wins a minority of seats does that mean they have to try and form a government. If invited to try and form one by the GG, could the minority leader decline?


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I wonder if just because a party wins a minority of seats does that mean they have to try and form a government. If invited to try and form one by the GG, could the minority leader decline?


Technically, I suppose they can -- but I wouldn't bet too much on that leader remaining leader tooooooooooo much longer after saying, "thanks, but no thanks" to being PM.


----------



## Cloud Cover (22 Aug 2019)

Was just thinking of the NDP deciding today that they would not support a Conservative government. it looks like a Con minority outcome will immediately trigger a coalition of the others or an immediate election.


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Aug 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> Was just thinking of the NDP deciding today that they would not support a Conservative government. it looks like a Con minority outcome will immediately trigger a coalition of the others or an immediate election.


Or a _*truly*_ crass Liberal cave-in JUST to keep hanging on to a smidgen of power by their fingernails


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Aug 2019)

IF a Conservative minority government fell due to a non confidence motion, can the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition petition the Governor General to form a government?


----------



## TCM621 (22 Aug 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >What would be the mechanism for his removal?
> 
> Parliament has the power.  Practically, Parliament won't use that power.  One of the benefits of living in a full democracy rather than a flawed one.
> 
> ...



In a full democracy, the executive would enact the will of the legislative branch. In Canada, the executive runs the legislative branch most of the time. Canada has zero checks and balances with the exception of a very weak Charter. A majority government in Canada is a virtual dictatorship for 5 years. We have a PM who has 4 separate ethics violations in accordance with legislation meaning he broke the law 4 times but it means nothing.


----------



## FJAG (22 Aug 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> In a full democracy, the executive would enact the will of the legislative branch. In Canada, the executive runs the legislative branch most of the time. Canada has zero checks and balances with the exception of a very weak Charter. A majority government in Canada is a virtual dictatorship for 5 years. We have a PM who has 4 separate ethics violations in accordance with legislation meaning he broke the law 4 times but it means nothing.



On the other hand you do not have the legislative/executive gridlocks that have been going on south of the border the last eight years or so.

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (23 Aug 2019)

Hamish Seggie said:
			
		

> IF a Conservative minority government fell due to a non confidence motion, can the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition petition the Governor General to form a government?



I think that’s exactly what Harper did to Dion or Martin. Can’t remember which.


----------



## PuckChaser (23 Aug 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> I think that’s exactly what Harper did to Dion or Martin. Can’t remember which.



It was Martin, because of the Sponsorship scandal. The same scandal that caused Harper to create the legal separation between DPP and the government that's now ensnared PM Trudeau in alleged obstruction of justice. New decade, same Liberal corruption. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Canadian_federal_election

Dion was the Liberal leader in 2008 when Harper won his first majority.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 Aug 2019)

It may be semantics, but I believe the GG was asked to "consider all options", rather than give the opposition the opportunity to form the government. Of course, the GG wisely chose to dissolve parliament instead.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Aug 2019)

It is not semantics, MdlrMike, nor was it what the GG was asked. And it was with the Dion Liberals, not Martin.

Someone asked earlier if Parliament could remove Trudeau from the PM post. The asnwer in our system is: no. However, the lower chamber - the commons - can withdraw its confidence in the PM, in which case the GG, upon cousel (i.e. at the request of the PM) has to disolve Parliament and run an election. It is the streght of our democracy that no PM ever tried to hang on without the confidence of the commons and ask the GG to simply let him/her continue regardless of a no-confidence vote. 

There is someone, however that can remove the PM from his/her post - or at least used to be able to in Canada until even that function was usurped by the political parties - and it is the party caucuses. That's how a certain Boris became PM in England not too long ago so he could go and put his feet up on the French President's nice furniture .

Going back to what happened with the 40th Paliament, you may recall that Dion (at the time) made a coalition with Layton, supported by Duceppe and May to ask that the GG put them in power rather than see the Parliament disolved when a no-confidence vote against Harper's minority loomed large and was threatened by that very same coalition. Now, that "coalition" never really asked the GG directly - since they have no such access to the GG - but through press conferences and a letter to her. The GG acts on acvice of her council (that is the PM and cabinet - the PM only in reality) and Harper requested prorogation of Parliament. She granted it, as she truly had no choice in the matter (At the time, some observers called the whole thing a constitutional crisis - which so long as the GG did what the PM recommended and was legal to do - was proper and averted what would otherwise have been a crisis, i.e. if she had elected to act independantly of the PM's advice and name the coalition).

You may also recall that, as a result of this "failure" and of bringning the Bloc Quebecois into a coalition, Dion was sacked by the Libs and Igniatieff named in his place as leader.


----------



## suffolkowner (23 Aug 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It is not semantics, MdlrMike, nor was it what the GG was asked. And it was with the Dion Liberals, not Martin.
> 
> Someone asked earlier if Parliament could remove Trudeau from the PM post. The asnwer in our system is: no. However, the lower chamber - the commons - can withdraw its confidence in the PM, in which case the GG, upon cousel (i.e. at the request of the PM) has to disolve Parliament and run an election. It is the streght of our democracy that no PM ever tried to hang on without the confidence of the commons and ask the GG to simply let him/her continue regardless of a no-confidence vote.
> 
> ...



OGBD I think that Viscount Byng might disagree with some of the above


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Aug 2019)

>Someone asked earlier if Parliament could remove Trudeau from the PM post. The asnwer in our system is: no. However, the lower chamber - the commons - can withdraw its confidence in the PM, in which case the GG, upon cousel (i.e. at the request of the PM) has to disolve Parliament and run an election.

How strong is the "has to"?  The scenario I had in mind was a government engineering its own defeat with a clear alternate PM in mind, whom the GG could ask to form a government.  (I was also thinking a reasonable PM, knowing it was coming, would resign rather than push the country into a possible crisis or election.)

For caucus to remove the PM would obviously be preferable.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Aug 2019)

It's a matter of timing, Brad.

If the Commons remove their confidence in the PM, they are in reality withdrawing their confidence in the governement of her Majesty. Once done, it's too late and the GG really (under our constitutional tradition) has no real say in granting the PM's request (who has no more real power at that point to "advise" otherwise) to disolve Parliement. Note that, under such scenario, the PM remains PM and, should he/she get a majority in the upcoming election, can maintain his status as PM, unless somehow even a majority from his own party won't give him their confidence (unheard of afaik). You can talk to Mr. Harper about that one: He remained PM after a vote of non-cofidence forced him into an election and gained his first majority that way.

On the other hand, when caucus throw the PM out and appoints a new leader, there remains the expectation that such new leader has the support of the majority of the lower chamber since it is the party with the most MP who put the new leader in place, so the GG, upon receipt of the news that the new leader has exposed himself/herself to the vote of confidence of the lower chamber and obtained a majority, is bound to ask the new leader to form a government, again under our constitutional tradition. At least this last bit is how it happens in the other Westminster style Parliaments around the world, other than Canada.

Unfortunately for us, the parties (and by that I mean the top hierarchy of those parties that run the show behind the scene as permanent staff of those parties) in Canada have long usurped power of Parliament by introducing, bit by bit, various ways and means imported from the US Republican system, but in such way as to actually giving us a system that has all the foibles of either system but none of the redeemeing characteristics. It has given us irresponsible governement - the very opposite of what we fought (and in the Province I come from it was actual fighting) for to rid Upper and Lower Canada of the Family Compact and the Clique du Palais. As a result, we now have MP's from the parties with most seat in Parliament but not member of the Governement (only Ministers of the Crown and Ministers of State are - not the MP's called back benchers) kowtowed into doing the government's biding in the commons, like trained monkeys , instead of doing their job of holding the Governement accountable to their electors.

No wonder ordinary MP's and Canadian senators  are considered nobodies when you compare them to their American Representatvies and Senators counterparts.


----------



## Jarnhamar (23 Aug 2019)

Luckily for PM Trudeau Canadians are more concerned about how many hamburgers Donald Trump had for lunch and who he's tweeting about than something as insignificant as ethics violations by the Prime Minister.


----------



## FSTO (23 Aug 2019)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> It's a matter of timing, Brad.
> 
> If the Commons remove their confidence in the PM, they are in reality withdrawing their confidence in the governement of her Majesty. Once done, it's too late and the GG really (under our constitutional tradition) has no real say in granting the PM's request (who has no more real power at that point to "advise" otherwise) to disolve Parliement. Note that, under such scenario, the PM remains PM and, should he/she get a majority in the upcoming election, can maintain his status as PM, unless somehow even a majority from his own party won't give him their confidence (unheard of afaik). You can talk to Mr. Harper about that one: He remained PM after a vote of non-cofidence forced him into an election and gained his first majority that way.
> 
> ...



In my perfect world, all the backbenchers of all parties would get together and force the caucuses to limit the power of the PMO. 
Will never happen though.


----------



## Remius (23 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Luckily for PM Trudeau Canadians are more concerned about how many hamburgers Donald Trump had for lunch and who he's tweeting about than something as insignificant as ethics violations by the Prime Minister.



Yup.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (23 Aug 2019)

You know, FSTO, when our democracy was young (first Parliament of the Dominion of Canada), parliamentarians had already foreseen the risks of party politics working only towards gaining and keeping power in governement, as opposed to merely helping the people's representatives getting elected in their riding. One of the very first Act of parliament was a law titled the "Independance of Parliament Act" whose specific purpose was to make sure that the government of her Majesty did not come to dominate or impose its will on Parliament. The concept that MP's were elected to keep the governement in check was so ingrained that under this Act (and until 1954), if a MP was asked to become a Minister of the Crown, he/she had to resign from being a siting MP and run in a by-election. The purpose: giving the constituents of that riding a chance to decide whether they wanted to be represented by a Minister, or by someone who would look to their interest by keeping the governement in check.

It started to erode with some, aterward never repealed, emergency powers during WWI, then some more during WWII, and it just quickly cascaded down after the early to mid 1960's.


----------



## TCM621 (24 Aug 2019)

FJAG said:
			
		

> On the other hand you do not have the legislative/executive gridlocks that have been going on south of the border the last eight years or so.
> 
> :cheers:



That is kind of by design. Any policy that doesn't have solid support is usually killed at one level or another. The concept being that they would rather nothing was done rather than have something forced upon them. The federal government was also supposed to be the least important level of government behind the state and municipal governments who were supposed to do all the heavy lifting. It is a lot easier to get consensus in your town or state than it is nationally. 

The American system is one of the greatest ever drawn up on paper but like all other systems it is run by people and people are irrational, petty, power hungry and tribal. The fact that the government barely functions at a time when there is growing gap between left and right with very little bipartisan discussion would be evidence, I think, to the designers of the system that they got it right.


----------



## FJAG (24 Aug 2019)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> That is kind of by design. Any policy that doesn't have solid support is usually killed at one level or another. The concept being that they would rather nothing was done rather than have something forced upon them. The federal government was also supposed to be the least important level of government behind the state and municipal governments who were supposed to do all the heavy lifting. It is a lot easier to get consensus in your town or state than it is nationally.
> 
> The American system is one of the greatest ever drawn up on paper but like all other systems it is run by people and people are irrational, petty, power hungry and tribal. The fact that the government barely functions at a time when there is growing gap between left and right with very little bipartisan discussion would be evidence, I think, to the designers of the system that they got it right.



I tend to disagree. The system was conceived as reactionary to a strong central British government. Since the country existed as separate colonies, the founders tended to design their system to retain primary power within their various fiefdoms and provide collective power to only the most essential items such as defence, coinage, international trade and postal services. Even in war, primary power remained with the states where the country's primary military forces were based on a militia system rather than a central army (something which was very much at the heart of the state-oriented, uncooperative Confederacy's defeat)

Note too that the electoral college system is founded on the principle that the masses may screw up the election and therefore the individual states' "elite" electors would have an opportunity to correct the populist vote.

Essentially the founders missed seeing the major shift that was coming within all modern societies at the time being the one from a loose, widely dispersed agrarian society to a more centralized, more connected one founded on industry, urbanization and communication. This factor and the failure to provide for a universally recognized central government led to the most destructive war in the nation's history. While the Constitution was silent on the issue of political parties, the growing divisions within the country quickly formed them by virtue of the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans.

While the US has corrected many shortcomings of the original Constitution by it's amendments, it has nonetheless remained a checkerboard of inconsistent laws in many vital areas such as criminal law and nation-wide human rights because of it's earliest structure which is still being used by numerous special interest groups to preserve their special status.

Don't get me wrong. I think the US Constitution at the time was a noble experiment especially in the face of the model of existing European imperialist governments and even to some extent the fledgling democratic monarchies, but by the mid 1800s the march forward into a proper nationwide democracy had been greatly curtailed. What should have been a major correction of the system after the Civil War failed due to the various chaotic components of the Reconstruction era. The point, however, is that a truly great constitution (on paper) should be one that can not only weather but defeat the "irrational, petty, power hungry and tribal" people who run it. One of the greatest checks and balances to any democratic system is through a truly independent judiciary that protects and grows the constitutionally protected rights as the nation matures. Unfortunately, in the US the highest level of judiciary, primarily through it's appointment system, is heavily politicized and, IMHO, basically a small handful of judges make up the law to suit the ideological bend of their individual factions.

 :cheers:


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Aug 2019)

The US federal government wasn't designed to be obstructionist or to be weak.  Those are effects.  What was important was setting the pieces up so that any one part couldn't do much during those time when, inevitably, rot set in.  What motivated the founders was distrust in men.  They were correct about that; and what they set up has been highly effective.  Some powers were dispersed among the states; some powers were dispersed within the federal government itself.


----------



## ballz (24 Aug 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Some people call what happened obstruction of justice (I am not sure if it fully fits the legal definition).  Suppose it is.  Should a leader be removed for it, or not?



I have my doubts too, particularly considering nothing actually happened, but after the Ethics Commissioner report it seems to me it clearly fits a breach of trust.

Legal tests for breach of trust:

1) the accused is an official 
2) the accused was acting in connection with the duties of his or her office 
3) the accused breached the standard of responsibility and conduct demanded of him or her by the nature of the office
4) the accused’s conduct represented a serious and marked departure from the standards expected of an individual in the accused’s position of public trust 
5) the accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose. 

#1 and #2 Not in question 
#3 & #4... Given the Ethics Commissioner's report that he *broke the law*, and after finding out that there was a deliberate attempt to *deceive the AG* into making taking legal advice from a loaded deck, any and all doubts have been removed for me...
#5 That is clearly what happened here at the Ethics Commissioner concluded as much. Dishonest and partial purpose have easily been met. I would go as far as to say corrupt.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (24 Aug 2019)

Not a fan of Trudeau ..... But! He is the Prime Minister and he had enabling legislation passed and provided hints to Wilson-Raybould.  She was too thick to figure it out.  He should have fired her after the first hint and appointed himself Attorney-General and used his best judgement on the case.  When settling cases instead of prosecuting becomes government policy, how can the Prime Minister be conflicted?


----------



## FJAG (24 Aug 2019)

Rocky Mountains said:
			
		

> Not a fan of Trudeau ..... But! He is the Prime Minister and he had enabling legislation passed and provided hints to Wilson-Raybould.  She was too thick to figure it out.  He should have fired her after the first hint and appointed himself Attorney-General and used his best judgement on the case.  When settling cases instead of prosecuting becomes government policy, how can the Prime Minister be conflicted?



The PM is conflicted when the government policy/legislation is designed so that an impartial and non politically motivated Director of Public Prosecutions is the one empowered to make the decision as to whether any individual case is to be prosecuted or offered an opportunity for deferred prosecution agreement. The AG can overturn the DPP's decision so long as it is done in writing and the instruction is made public in the Canada Gazette. Finally there is also a provision that a judge review and approve the agreement on the grounds of whether it is in the public interest.

All of this is to ensure that Prime Ministers do not take charge of the justice system so as to provide favouritism for his cronies.

Becoming PM and setting a government policy does not equate to ultimate power to implement whatever you want. If the PM wants more powers then he needs to have parliament put it into legislation that does not offend the Constitution.

 :cheers:


----------



## Haggis (26 Aug 2019)

ballz said:
			
		

> 5) the accused acted with the intention to use his or her public office for a purpose other than the public good, for example, a dishonest, partial, corrupt, or oppressive purpose.





			
				ballz said:
			
		

> #5 That is clearly what happened here at the Ethics Commissioner concluded as much.



In his rebuttal to JWR's testimony, the PM has already stated that he disagrees with this assessment.  He  believes he acted in the public interest by safeguarding Canadian jobs.  Not all Canadian jobs, just those of  a Liberal friendly corporation headquartered in the Liberal stronghold of Québec.  But Canadian jobs nonetheless.  And, if you vote Liberal again, maybe next time he'll look after Alberta jobs.  Maybe.  But that could be asking for more than he can give right now.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Aug 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Luckily for PM Trudeau Canadians are more concerned about how many hamburgers Donald Trump had for lunch and who he's tweeting about than something as insignificant as ethics violations by the Prime Minister.


One's more confusing than the other


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Aug 2019)

Haggis said:
			
		

> In his rebuttal to JWR's testimony, the PM has already stated that he disagrees with this assessment.  He  believes he acted in the public interest by safeguarding Canadian jobs.  Not all Canadian jobs, just those of  a Liberal friendly corporation headquartered in the Liberal stronghold of Québec.  But Canadian jobs nonetheless.  And, if you vote Liberal again, maybe next time he'll look after Alberta jobs.  Maybe.  But that could be asking for more than he can give right now.



This is why we have a court system, isn't it?  For arbitration when two people believe that they are in the right but circumstances demand that only one of them can be allowed to act on their belief?


----------



## PuckChaser (26 Aug 2019)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> This is why we have a court system, isn't it?  For arbitration when two people believe that they are in the right but circumstances demand that only one of them can be allowed to act on their belief?



Seems like he's set the stage for his defense in court already. Is the greater public interest that corporations be held to account for their actions and that politicians are not improperly lobbied, or that some replaceable jobs are temporarily at risk?


----------



## FJAG (26 Aug 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Seems like he's set the stage for his defense in court already. Is the greater public interest that corporations be held to account for their actions and that politicians are not improperly lobbied, or that some replaceable jobs are temporarily at risk?



He will never be in the court over this.

Fundamentally, the question here isn't whether or not there was a crime by SNC and whether or not punishing SNC and thereby losing the ability to get government contracts and thereby endangering SNC jobs (and let's face it if an SNC employee doesn't get the job some other Canadian will) is a public interest issue where the government should step in.

The question is do out leaders have to follow the rule of law where they perceive a public interest issue (that incidentally effects their political interest)?

The point is we had a law and a legal process that was moving forward. The government then changed the law so that an escape clause for SNC existed but which decision was quite rightly controlled by an independent agency. When that agency, following the law, decided that exercising their discretion wasn't appropriate, the executive decided to lay on the heat. No proper thinking Canadian could possibly think this was the right thing to do, regardless of the impact on SNC workers. It showed a callous disrespect for the rule of law in this country. 

 :cheers:


----------



## Cloud Cover (26 Aug 2019)

What troubles me is that millions of citizens seem to think this either SOP for the PMO (any PMO) and so this is a fully conditioned and now operative expectation. They might not even agree with it, but they accept it and might be so bold to occasionally demand it.  Do it once and get away with it, keep on doing it and it then becomes an executive power by custom if nothing is done to stop it. Now maybe there is no such thing as “ executive power by custom”, and while it’s true that the AG did not and has so far not let the PMO succeed, a more compliant AG might have and that’s a problem we need to fix.  It may very well be that we have crossed into the reality a politically corrupt country that has poisoned the legal system, with potentially former Supreme Court Judges inadvertently playing a hand in it.  Not in the sense or scale of Putin, but more like a drunken Duplessis (without the religion unless Twitter is your religion). This is something again that many Canadian people are apparently prepared to tolerate and even defend as long as it doesn’t affect them negatively or if they are counting on it for some reason. 

What may have nearly happened here, and the story isn’t over, is that Parliament, it’s oversight bodies and to some degree the judicial system have been rendered powerless, and only useful when the PMO approves. A 4 year election cycle with a cheque for everybody is not an efficient check on power. Elections appear to have devolved to a mass invitation to larceny, when you think about it. 

I think it’s noble that many people refuse to move off this subject. I would love be to see a political party reveal a platform that fully addresses abuse of power.


----------



## ballz (26 Aug 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> What may have nearly happened here, and the story isn’t over, is that Parliament, it’s oversight bodies and to some degree the judicial system have been rendered powerless, and only useful when the PMO approves.



If the RCMP don't lay charges*, this is exactly what I see happened as far as I'm concerned. Call me a crazy tinfoil-hat wearing lunatic, but our democratic system is incrementally failing.

We know we're supposed to have prosecutorial independence which is protected by nothing, and was almost compromised... what measures do we have in place to ensure the RCMP, which are part of the executive branch, are executing their duties on this independently and free from interference from the PMO / Minister of Public Safety?

*And I'm okay with a "not guilty" verdict.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Aug 2019)

>Now maybe there is no such thing as “ executive power by custom”

There is plenty of "customary" government in Canada.

The thing about custom is that it is mutable.


----------



## Rocky Mountains (3 Sep 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The thing about custom is that it is mutable.



You'd have to ask the Supreme Court about that one.  Which way is the wind blowing today?  From the left?  I look upon the courts as being as political as the legislators.


----------



## MilEME09 (11 Sep 2019)

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-ottawa-blocks-rcmp-on-snc-lavalin-inquiry/

Nothing suspicious here at all.....


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Sep 2019)

Well, ain't that convenient....


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Sep 2019)

Indeed ...


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Sep 2019)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The thing about custom is that it is mutable.



As John Bercow and the British Parliament are demonstrating.  They started off playing soccer and now they are playing Aussie Rules.

And as to Cabinet Confidentiality - look into the Prorogation discussion and whether or not special advisors's emails are confidential.

Nothing is what it was anymore.  And I miss it.  Time to retire to the pub.


----------



## Haggis (12 Sep 2019)

Robert Fife breaks down the impact and historical exceptions to Cabinet confidences  here


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2019)

Would the Obstruction of Justice in investigating an Obstruction of Justice be considered a DOUBLE NEGATIVE = A POSITIVE......ie. It is positive proof that Justin is guilty?


----------



## George Wallace (12 Sep 2019)

I know Justin "experiences 'transparency' differently" than the rest of us Canadians.


----------



## RocketRichard (12 Sep 2019)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> I know Justin "experiences 'transparency' differently" than the rest of us Canadians.


Writ dropped. HERE COMES GW!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Sprinting Thistle (12 Sep 2019)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Would the Obstruction of Justice in investigating an Obstruction of Justice be considered a DOUBLE NEGATIVE = A POSITIVE......ie. It is positive proof that Justin is guilty?



In the words a famous and wise philosopher who knows all about scandals, "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."


----------



## Haggis (12 Sep 2019)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."



My brain hurt after reading that.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Sep 2019)

Sprinting Thistle said:
			
		

> In the words a famous and wise philosopher who knows all about scandals, "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."




Who could possibly forget that one.....  :facepalm:


----------



## brihard (13 Sep 2019)

Just to inform the discussion regarding Cabinet Confidentiality, sinc eI've seen people talking about 'well why don't the RCMP get court orders' and such- the applicable section of law is section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.

This is one of the most cut and dried sections of any law in Canada, and it doesn't offer a legal or judicial mechanism to get around it, as are found with other similar evidentiary exclusions such as those found in sections 37 or 38 relating to public interest, national security, or diplomatic relations. 

There is literally no power whatsoever for any judge of any court at any level to override cabinet confidentiality. Ministers of the Crown and the clerk of the Privy Council have an absolute power to withhold cabinet confidences from disclosure. There is no mechanism anywhere that lets police, courts, or any other public body compel the disclosure of cabinet privileged information.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Sep 2019)

As the Clerk of the Privy Council reports to the PM, the buck stops with Mr Trudeau.


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Sep 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> ... There is literally no power whatsoever for any judge of any court at any level to override cabinet confidentiality ...


Unless a new government wants to change the law -- opening _themselves_ to losing the protection of cabinet confidence.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Sep 2019)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> As the Clerk of the Privy Council reports to the PM, the buck stops with Mr Trudeau.



Particularly evident when one describes the Clerk by one of their three functions - the PM's own Deputy Minister.

Regards
G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Sep 2019)

Ho hum, another day in Trudeau's Canukistan. I really can't fathom how anyone could be surprised by this. His whole tenure has been nothing but deceit and dishonesty. From his election promises four years ago, to the latest debacle, with more to come, I'm sure.


----------



## Cloud Cover (18 Sep 2019)

So this appears to be done, because nobody cares anymore. There’s likely no RCMP investigation now. The only people who can pass judgement are the electorate.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 Sep 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> So this appears to be done, because nobody cares anymore. There’s likely no RCMP investigation now. The only people who can pass judgement are the electorate.



Keep living the dream. Many are just stupid and only vote the latest lie or sound bite. I don't have confidence in the electorate, especially Sanctuary City and east of Ontario. Perhaps I'll be pleasantly surprised on the 22nd, but I'm not getting my hopes up.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Sep 2019)

Cloud Cover said:
			
		

> So this appears to be done, because nobody cares anymore. There’s likely no RCMP investigation now. The only people who can pass judgement are the electorate.



To whom the Liberals are throwing monetary promises to in vast quantities.


----------



## remember (30 Sep 2019)

With due respect, Liberals are good in juggling of our tax returns where their rhetoric sounds as if we are given enormous monies. I get taxed $ 650 every month. So that is $ 8000 in taxes per year. I get a total $ 2,500 in tax returns and other benefits. I am not whining because of my expected pensions. I also do not care if I get taxed 40% for overtime. I saved $300,000. I will buy a seniors apartment when I retire. No complaints because the Conservatives did the same.


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Dec 2019)

The latest ....


> *SNC Lavalin Construction Inc. Pleads Guilty to Fraud*
> 
> SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc.(SLCI) pleaded guilty today in the Court of Quebec to fraud contrary to s. 380(1) a) of the Criminal Code.
> 
> ...


More from MSM @ Google News here.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2019)

No jail time, just like SNC wanted.

Better get them some more government contracts to help them pay for their fine.


----------



## George Wallace (19 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> No jail time, just like SNC wanted.
> 
> Better get them some more government contracts to help them pay for their fine.



Their fine was nothing more than a slap on the wrist.  A few hundred million dollars is nothing compared to the billions of dollars companies are fined in the US.


----------



## MilEME09 (19 Dec 2019)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Their fine was nothing more than a slap on the wrist.  A few hundred million dollars is nothing compared to the billions of dollars companies are fined in the US.



its a joke what they got fined,  and they know it, but does this prevent them from going after government contracts? if it doesn't then thy got the outcome they wanted which tells me the libs intervened.


----------



## Altair (19 Dec 2019)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> its a joke what they got fined,  and they know it, but does this prevent them from going after government contracts? if it doesn't then thy got the outcome they wanted which tells me the libs intervened.


This does not prevent them from going after government contracts.


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Dec 2019)

Like Butts said, Trudeau gets what he wants.


----------



## Cloud Cover (19 Dec 2019)

Plead guilty to corruption but not necessarily corruption? 

Vern Krishna, a leading tax lawyer and tax professor in Canada, previously made a statement which I believe to be 100 percent correct: "_Corruption of government officials is a routine cost of doing business in many countries, including Canada._ 
https://taxchambers.ca/bribery-and-corruption-in-international-business/

So here we have a plain statement that corruption and bribery are in fact a routine cost of doing business in Canada, like pretty much everywhere else. 

Thankfully, at least the the 280,000,000 is theoretically not tax deductible: 

"However, even though bribes are a necessary and essential cost of doing business in some countries, the Income Tax Act weighs in with its own “economic morality” by prohibiting the deduction of bribes in computing net income and undermining the very foundation of income tax law, the accurate computation of net income."

"If Canada is going to rigorously apply the CFPOA to all Canadian corporations operating in the 172 countries listed below it in the Corruption Index, _we should prepare for less international business and more litigation._"

It might be this last point that has more recently come to weigh heavily on political leaders.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2020)

Filed under _Nothing to see here, SNC operating as usual._

[Mods not sure if there is a more appropriate thread sorry]

*Councillors shocked by sloppiness of SNC-Lavalin's winning Trillium Line bid*
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/snc-lavalin-technical-bid-reaction-1.5439818
[qiote]Some Ottawa city councillors are calling for answers in the wake of revelations the *city's technical evaluation team wanted SNC-Lavalin thrown out of the bidding process* for the second stage of Ottawa's north-south rail line.

*Instead, the company was eventually awarded the $1.6-billion contract *for Stage 2 of the Trillium Line.[/quote]


The real question here is why are the councillors shocked?  It's SNC  :


----------



## Navy_Pete (25 Jan 2020)

If you go to the story that came out earlier yesterday, they actually have the summary of the tech evaluation for all three bidders; the SNC bid was shockingly bad.  Can't believe they passed it through with clear problems with scope, understanding of the basic project, safety/regulatory issues, and just a generally unprofessional submission.  Sometimes there is a clause allowing a bit of wiggle room, but generally it's for things like a required certificate wasn't included in the bid or something, so it's to prevent an otherwise good bid being failed for not meeting a mandatory items because someone forgot to add a piece of paper or whatever.

Here's the link; was completely stunned.  This should get the oversight team fired, and tarred& feathered, and the contract award should be canceled.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/snc-lavalin-technical-evaluation-1.5438697

Really not sure why they did this; only thing that makes sense is that they peaked at the financials and it was way cheaper. Which, you know, may happen when you haven't costed major sections or overlooked other basics.


----------



## Jarnhamar (25 Jan 2020)

Yea I liked that. SNC didn't even realize the train was diesel which comes with a bunch of important differences. 

Maybe they can get the Honourable Justin Trudeau to make these unflattering news stories go away.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Jan 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> If you go to the story that came out earlier yesterday, they actually have the summary of the tech evaluation for all three bidders; the SNC bid was shockingly bad.  Can't believe they passed it through with clear problems with scope, understanding of the basic project, safety/regulatory issues, and just a generally unprofessional submission.  Sometimes there is a clause allowing a bit of wiggle room, but generally it's for things like a required certificate wasn't included in the bid or something, so it's to prevent an otherwise good bid being failed for not meeting a mandatory items because someone forgot to add a piece of paper or whatever.
> 
> Here's the link; was completely stunned.  *This should get the oversight team fired*, and tarred& feathered, and the contract award should be canceled.
> 
> ...




It's hard to fire the mayor and his cronies, except at the regularly scheduled municipal elections.

SNC-Lavalin's tentacles are long and they are embedded deep in the Canadian and Ontario Liberal Parties. Mayor Jim Watson is a strong Liberal, a former minister in Kathleen Wynne's Ontario Liberal regime. He toes the Party Line which seems to include giving SNC-Lavalin whatever it wants.


----------



## Navy_Pete (27 Jan 2020)

The oversight team is a greasy legalist and some senior city staff, but agree that the Mayor is effectively part of the party.

It's really frustrating that this whole thing is so sub standard; if they are going to be greasy about the process, you really need to deliver something that is at least good enough to stop people from poking at the process and asking questions. Corruption is bad on it's own, but this is kind of inept corruption that is also embarrassing for the cartoon villains involved.

I think heads will roll in the next election but that's not until 2022, so unless someone grows a pair and cancels the contract, phase 2 is going to be an even bigger soup sandwich than phase 1. So far no one has gotten hurt, but with the scale of equipment failures happening, seems like a matter of time. High tension power cables arcing and breaking, trains on parallel tracks somehow colliding at the yard, and some other inexplicable failures are not good signs 4 months into opening.


----------



## ModlrMike (27 Jan 2020)

Why am I thinking of the Simpsons monorail episode?


----------



## OldSolduer (27 Jan 2020)

Navy_Pete said:
			
		

> The oversight team is a greasy legalist and some senior city staff, but agree that the Mayor is effectively part of the party.
> 
> It's really frustrating that this whole thing is so sub standard; if they are going to be greasy about the process, you really need to deliver something that is at least good enough to stop people from poking at the process and asking questions. Corruption is bad on it's own, but this is kind of inept corruption that is also embarrassing for the cartoon villains involved.
> 
> I think heads will roll in the next election but that's not until 2022, so unless someone grows a pair and cancels the contract, phase 2 is going to be an even bigger soup sandwich than phase 1. So far no one has gotten hurt, but with the scale of equipment failures happening, seems like a matter of time. High tension power cables arcing and breaking, trains on parallel tracks somehow colliding at the yard, and some other inexplicable failures are not good signs 4 months into opening.



A week is a long time in politics - two years is ancient history. MAYBE if the electorate would actually get out and vote that might send a message.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jan 2020)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Why am I thinking of the Simpsons monorail episode?



Ottawa aspires to get that quality of work, someday...


----------



## brihard (27 Jan 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Ottawa aspires to get that quality of work, someday...



I hear those things are awfully loud...


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jan 2020)

Brihard said:
			
		

> I hear those things are awfully loud...


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Sep 2021)

Latest on the SNC Lavelin affair….conveniently 48 hours _*after*_ the federal election…

SNC-Lavalin corporations and 2 former top execs charged with fraud, forgery by RCMP


> OTTAWA -- The corporate entities of SNC-Lavalin Inc. and SNC-Lavalin International Inc., as well as two former senior executives of the Quebec-based firms have been charged with a series of fraud and forgery offenses by the RCMP.
> 
> According to a statement released by the RCMP on Thursday, former vice-president of SNC-Lavalin Normand Morin and former vice-president of SNC-Lavalin International Inc. Kamal Francis have been arrested but released.  They, and the two corporate entities, are facing “a number of charges” including fraud against the government, following “a lengthy and comprehensive criminal investigation by the National Division RCMP Sensitive and International Investigations section.”
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (23 Sep 2021)

Having done some work with the RCMP in the past, I'll argue Hanlon's razor.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Sep 2021)

Same here, re: RCMP, but I’ll stay with Niccolò di Bernardo dei Machiavelli’s Razor.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 Sep 2021)

Seriously, was anyone really surprised by this? The only anomaly is how soon it happened. I was sure they'd wait until the election signs came down. But hey, why waste time?


----------



## brihard (23 Sep 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Having done some work with the RCMP in the past, I'll argue Hanlon's razor.


This is a completely separate SNC investigation from the one that implicated PMO, JWR, etc. That was “Project Assistance”, this was “Project Agrafe”. This one appears to involve fraud against the provincial government in Quebec.

I don’t see that this is any different from any other matter where, during caretaker period, Federal departments and agencies will refrain from taking actions that could be politically loaded. Most would not both to look to actual facts in the matter and would simply see “SNC” and jump to immediate (but incorrect) conclusions about it being linked to the controversy around the other SNC prosecution.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2021)

brihard said:


> This is a completely separate SNC investigation from the one that implicated PMO, JWR, etc. That was “Project Assistance”, this was “Project Agrafe”. This one appears to involve fraud against the provincial government in Quebec.
> 
> I don’t see that this is any different from any other matter where, during caretaker period, Federal departments and agencies will refrain from taking actions that could be politically loaded. Most would not both to look to actual facts in the matter and would simply see “SNC” and jump to immediate (but incorrect) conclusions about it being linked to the controversy around the other SNC prosecution.



Indeed. How soon people seem to have forgotten the fallout from the income trusts fiasco in very late 2005.


----------



## Good2Golf (23 Sep 2021)

Yes, Assistance ≠ Agrafe.

Tracking it totally as technically separate, but also not naive enough to believe that there wouldn’t be consideration somewhere in the machine to keep this out of a particular timeframe/window.  So what this says then, if we take things at innocent face value, is that the RCMP did not have a case to lay charges on August 15th, but they then miraculously had a case to charge SNC some time between August 16th and today, but were bound by federal government policy to postpone charges until after the election.

Same law enforcement organization that out of approx 75 individuals known to have had access to correspondence in the Seaspan-Irving cabinet confidence affair, only found cause to charge VAdm(Ret’d) Mark Norman…so no influence, right? Hmmm.

I have great respect for members of the RCMP who deserve respect, but in no way does that lead me to blindly accept that there aren’t agendas and influences in/towards the Force.

Perhaps I should ask fellow DS to move this single post to another non-PMO thread, so there is no potential for people to see anything inappropriately Machiavellian to today’s charges?

Regards
G2G


----------

