• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Disaster PM


Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
Good articles worth the read. What a disaster the PM is. Someone send him a copy of The Principals of Leadership.


ANALYSIS: How Justin Trudeau’s India trip went from bad to ‘Bengal Bungle’ - David Akin - 23 Feb 18

Extract: 1. And then “worse” turned to “farce” when the PMO trotted out one of the most senior members of the civil service, someone who is one of the handful of bureaucrats privy to literally all the secrets of our national security agencies, to engage in frantic damage control.

After insisting that any journalist who wanted to listen to what this individual had to say could not name this person, the government tasked the bureaucrat with peddling what must be one of the most bizarre conspiracy theories ever advanced by a Canadian government: That Jaspal Atwal, the terrorist invited by the Liberals to Mumbai, may have been planted there by the Indian government or maybe by Indian security agencies or perhaps by factions in the Indian government. Whatever that means. In other words, it was the Indian government who had successfully set out to make their guest, the Canadian prime minister, look like a fool when it came to his position on Sikh extremism.

And this was the spin Trudeau’s government was offering up while Trudeau himself was still in India, hours before he was to meet Narendra Modi, the prime minister of the government that Canada’s “senior government official” thinks was trying to show up Canada’s PM. This individual, in describing the theory, couched every possibility with words like “maybe” and “possibly,” yet offered no proof or evidence of any allegation and did all of this from behind the cloak of anonymity.

Global News, like most other news organizations accredited to Parliament Hill, knows who this individual is that made these allegations, and it is only out of respect for the position this individual holds that one is forced to at least take the allegation seriously if only for long enough to dismiss it as folly.

Because, among other things, in order to have this theory work — to accept the idea that some third party in India arranged Atwal to be present at the PM’s Mumbai event — one has to accept the idea that Randeep Sarai, the member of Parliament for Surrey Centre, was in on the scam. Sarai has refused to answer questions about his role in this affair but we do know that Atwal was on the invitation list for two Mumbai events at Sarai’s request. So, to come back to our conspiracy theory, Indian agents looking to show up Trudeau had to somehow convince Sarai to be their willing stooge and issue the invitations to Atwal.

2. What we should accept is the briefest of explanations Sarai offered in his only written statement so far on the matter: “I alone facilitated his request to attend this important event. I should have exercised better judgment, and I take full responsibility for my actions.”

You should read it. Bizarre.


Furey: The world has all of a sudden revised its take on Justin Trudeau - Anthony Furey - 23 Feb 18

What an incredible reversal of fortune the past couple months have been for Justin Trudeau. There were a few hints that this was about to come, that the world was going to turn on him. Or at least revise and downgrade their expectations of the man who was once featured on their glossy front pages. But now, with the multiple screw-ups coming out of his trip to India, we’re very much in the thick of it.

The news that Jaspal Atwal, a Sikh extremist convicted of attempted murder, had been invited to a dinner with Trudeau in India is really just the story that broke the dam for this international deluge of criticism the PM is currently in the midst of. Before the Atwal story came out, both Canadians and international observers were already scratching their heads about how Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi had clearly snubbed Trudeau, how excessive his family photos were and how silly their garments were, trying to dress more stereotypically Indian than the actual Indian people they met.

“There does not seem to be any purpose for, or proper planning to, his visit,” Arthur G. Rubinoff, a University of Toronto professor emeritus who previously advised the Paul Martin government on Canada-India relations, wrote in the Sun. The Daily Mail in the U.K. had a good chuckle over how, as they put it, “Justin Trudeau NEVER misses an opportunity to don traditional attire.” The story went on to feature pictures of the PM not just in India but also getting in on the cultural appropriation game on other trips.

The Atwal story then kicked this international attention into high gear, with Indian and other world media struggling to figure out how such a screw-up was possible. The most scathing of all was a column in The Washington Post by Barkha Dutt, a prominent Indian journalist who boasts a social media following of over six million. “I confess, from afar, I used to be a Trudeau fan-girl,” she writes. “But after this trip, I’ve changed my mind. Trudeau has come across as flighty and facetious. His orchestrated dance moves and multiple costume changes in heavily embroidered kurtas and sherwanis make him look more like an actor on a movie set or a guest at a wedding than a politician who is here to talk business. “Suddenly, all that charisma and cuteness seem constructed, manufactured and, above all, not serious.”

Ouch. This will come as a sting to a man whose success hinges on keeping his personal brand afloat. Shortly after Trudeau’s 2015 electoral victory, the idea that he would take the baton from Barack Obama and become the world’s progressive-in-chief was a popular notion among liberal elites. Trudeau’s “because it’s 2015” and “welcome to Canada” hashtag activism initially affirmed this for his admirers.

Then along came a few bumps in the road. The first big one was the Castro eulogy, which was just bizarre. It garnered condemnation from around the globe, including from prominent U.S. politician Marco Rubio. Then there was the $10 million awarded to Omar Khadr, again causing heads to shake. The news that a liberal purity test was being placed on a summer jobs grant program also raised eyebrows abroad. Plus there was Trudeau’s eagerness to be duped by the hijab hoax, don’t forget that one. That said, this series of missteps was still somewhat acceptable to the liberal media, still within the boundaries of their agenda, even if it was stretching the limits. The damage could be written off as partisan.

Then came the motherlode, the point of no return. The “peoplekind” comment. It was too much even for the wackiest of leftists. Stop the ride, they said, we’re getting off now. There was no walking this one back, even when Trudeau tried to shrug it off as a joke. This one Trudeau had to ride out alone, without his usual phalanx of defenders, as the world weighed in and the likes of Piers Morgan issued a scathing takedown.

Team Trudeau clearly wasn’t expecting the blowback and the PM’s top adviser, Gerald Butts, called some of Trudeau’s critics Nazis on social media, leading Jewish human rights activists to denounce Butts’ ill-mannered meltdown. It’s one thing for a goofy Trudeauism to rankle the conservative base. They’ve been foaming at the mouth over everything the crown prince does since back when he won the leadership in 2013. It doesn’t take much to get them denouncing him. It’s another thing to see the rest join the pile on.

Trudeau is now at the midway point of his first term. The budget has not balanced itself. Key campaign planks have faltered. The PMO’s deliverology has failed to deliver. And, perhaps most damaging of all, Trudeau’s image is fraying even among his base. Are we about to see a pivot? Will there be a change of tone, a move towards more mature governance? That’s up to Trudeau. In the meantime, he’s sure got a lot of the world’s attention.
I didn't see in the article, where he fucked the Veterans. However, that's to be expected, I guess.
Sajjan announces plans to settle class-action lawsuits against Canadian forces after PM criticism
The decision comes after Justin Trudeau blasted the Justice Department for its response to one of the proposed suits


Momentarily I had hope. Restitution for Vets.

And then this:

The federal government is launching settlement talks for three proposed class-action lawsuits filed by former Canadian Forces members who say they experienced harassment and discrimination while in uniform.

Word of the decision comes two weeks after Justin Trudeau blasted the Justice Department for its response to one of the proposed suits, although the government refused to say whether the prime minister’s comments played a role.

Defence Minister Harjit Sajjan announced the planned negotiations on Friday, saying the plaintiffs in the proposed lawsuits had agreed to suspend their litigation and that the government would in turn drop its efforts to quash the cases and seek to resolve the cases outside court.

Two of the proposed lawsuits were brought forward by former members who say they were sexually assaulted or harassed while in uniform, while the third relates to allegations of endemic racism and discrimination against visible minorities and Indigenous service personnel.

I guess they weren't asking more than the Government could afford.

And to our legally inclined brethren.....Is the PM permitted to make this kind of direction?
Chris Pook said:

Momentarily I had hope. Restitution for Vets.

And then this:

I guess they weren't asking more than the Government could afford.

And to our legally inclined brethren.....Is the PM permitted to make this kind of direction?

I've never worked for the DoJ but I think the short answer is yes. Note that by PM I read that more as the collective will of the governor in council than the PM as an individual.

When confederation came about the administration and direction of the Department of Justice was put into the hands of  Cabinet Minster thereby creating a direct political link between the Department and the government. In effect the role of the Department is to provide legal advice to the government and to develop legal policies in compliance with political government direction.

The Attorney General (in essence the same individual who is the Minister of Justice and again a political appointment) has responsibility for protecting the government's interest through legal advice to the government and it's departments and for litigating issues before the court on behalf of the government.

There are some limitations. For one, the conduct of criminal prosecutions has since 2006 been put into the hands of an independent body--the Public Prosecution Office of Canada--to insulate actual prosecutions from political interference. Secondly there are the courts themselves who rule on the law as written and as interpreted by the courts regardless of what the crown may argue in court. If dissatisfied with a court ruling, the government, acting politically, can always change the law (so long as it doesn't offend the constitution).

In this case, the Department of Justice has analysed the law as being that the government did not owe a “duty of care” (a concept in tort law and particularly the law of negligence) to military personnel “to provide a safe and harassment-free work environment, or to create policies to prevent sexual harassment or sexual assault.” It had provided that advice to the government and prepared to defend the government's case on that basis. If the government finds that position to be politically unpalatable then it has every right to either change the law or, like any client advising his lawyer, direct the lawyer not to argue that particular defence even if available and, if appropriate, to settle the case. In this case, an out of court settlement would actually leave the argument a moot point. Without a law to change it and without a court decision, the government would be free to argue or not argue the principle in a future case giving them some political wiggle room.

So to summarize, the government cannot and should not interfere politically in a criminal prosecution but has the right and ability to use political considerations in directing how a particular civil suit involving the crown is to be argued by its lawyers.

Chris Pook said:
I guess they weren't asking more than the Government could afford.

But will they get anything near the $10 million precedent set for human rights violations by the Khadr settlement ?