Sign in to follow this  
Malcolm

All About Justin / The good, the bad and the ugly

Recommended Posts

more tears from Justin, how about some tears for the many thousands who have lost jobs in the West, along with the trauma / long term effects on them and their families?

Regarding the specifics of the mistreatment, I wonder if there was any thought given to why the deceased were buried quickly and not transported back to their towns / villages?  Even today there are very specific rules for such transportation http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2008_135.pdf and I suspect at least part of the reason was the concern regarding risk to those who might be exposed to TB during the movement.  However there is no doubt that the people in the North were not given any consideration re their wants or needs.

 

 

‘We are sorry’: Tears as Trudeau apologizes for mistreatment of Inuit during TB outbreaks

 
‎Today, ‎March ‎8, ‎2019, ‏‎1 hour ago | The Canadian Press

IQALUIT, Nunavut — Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shed tears while he apologized on Friday for the way Inuit in northern Canada were treated for tuberculosis in the mid-20th century, calling it colonial and misguided.

Trudeau delivered an apology to the Inuit on behalf of the federal government — words that prompted many in the room to openly weep.

“Today, I am here to offer an official apology for the federal government’s management of tuberculosis in the Arctic from the 1940s to the 1960s,” he said. “Many of you know all too well how this policy played itself out.”

Trudeau acknowledged that many people with TB died after being removed from their families and communities and taken on gruelling journeys south on ships, trains and aircraft.

“We are sorry,” Trudeau said. “We are sorry for forcing you from your families, for not showing you the respect and care you deserved. We are sorry for your pain. To the people whose loved ones were taken away, we are sorry. We are sorry for breaking what is most precious — the love of a home.”

The prime minister also apologized to those who still do not know what happened to their loved ones.

“To the communities that are facing the consequences of this policy and others, we are sorry,” he said. “We are sorry that because of our mistakes, many Inuit don’t trust the health care system so they can’t get help when they need it. We are sorry for the colonial mindset that drove the federal government’s actions.”

Prior to the apology, Trudeau was hugged in a long embrace by a woman who told the gathering how her husband died and that his body was not returned from the south.

Trudeau made the visit to the capital of Nunavut a day later than planned after bad weather prevented his plane from landing on Thursday.

He also announced Friday the opening of a database that Inuit families can soon use to find loved ones who died when they were transported south for treatment.

The database is part of a wider initiative called Nanilavut, which means “let’s find them” in Inuktitut.

“That’s what this project is about,” Trudeau said. “About finding and honouring Inuit who went missing during the TB epidemic and bringing healing and closure to everyone who was left behind. I can’t begin to imagine what it would be like to lose someone you love and go on never knowing what had happened.”

The apology had been in the works for the better part of two years, since Trudeau signed an Inuit-Crown partnership agreement in 2017.

Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., a representative for Inuit in Nunavut, has said it wanted to help family members locate burial sites of those who died during tuberculosis treatment from the 1940s through the 1960s. Their bodies were buried in southern Canada instead of being returned to their relatives.

The mistreatment of Inuit during the TB outbreaks was a “massive human rights failure” from the government of Canada in the treatment of its own citizens, said Natan Obed, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami (ITK).

His organization acts as the national voice of the roughly 60,000 Inuit living in four sections of northern Canada.

The government took far too long to formally acknowledge wrongdoing, Obed said.

“It is a long time and I do wish the apology came sooner.”

Inuit who were infected with TB in the mid-20th century were taken into government care, separated from their families and transported aboard ships to sanatoriums in the south of Canada, where they were disconnected from their culture and language.

In many cases, those who died from the disease were buried without their families knowing what happened to them or where they were laid to rest.

James Eetoolook is a 72-year-old TB survivor among a family of survivors.

Over the years, he and seven of his relatives were stricken with TB, including his mother, sisters and brother, who was first diagnosed in the mid-1940s when one of the ships carrying doctors north reached his family’s trading post village.

Eetoolook was diagnosed as a 16-year-old and was sent for treatment in Edmonton, where he was in the hospital and bed-ridden for months.

The federal government took too long to diagnose the illness in the Inuit population and didn’t do enough to keep track of those who were taken south for treatment.

Now, as vice president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Eetoolook worries that TB is returning to higher levels once again in an age when it simply should not be happening.

In October 2017, then federal health minister Jane Philpott announced the establishment of a task force to develop a plan to eliminate TB among Inuit.

“The government has said it wants to eliminate TB by 2030,” Eetoolook said.

“Are they going to do it? Probably not.”

According to the most recent Public Health Agency of Canada report on the disease, the average annual rate of tuberculosis among Inuit in Canada a year ago was still more than 290 times higher than Canadian born non-Indigenous people.

The agency cited social housing and overcrowding as one of the main culprits.

More than half of all Nunavut residents live in often cramped social housing.

“Many experience food insecurity, with food prices in Nunavut that are twice those in southern Canada,” the March 2018 report stated.

As well, 60 per cent of Nunavut residents smoke.

But the report said progress has been made in tracing all cases of infectious TB, screening of school age children, faster diagnosis and earlier treatments.

As for the apology, and the database, Eetoolook said he believes it will bring closure to many Inuit.

“It will help the families that had loved ones that died,” he predicted.

“Some of the (burial grounds) will be hard to find.”

Families now have a chance to locate their loved ones, he said.

Obed lamented how the federal government has been criticized for apologizing too much for various past wrongs, but said an apology to the Inuit is necessary as part of healing and reconciliation.

“From the Inuit perspective, apologizing for human rights abuses is never a bad thing,” he said.

“We as a country have to also accept responsibility for things that happened and know that apologies are necessary for classes of people whose human rights have been violated.”

NP_Top_Stories?d=yIl2AUoC8zA NP_Top_Stories?i=3VQgJF97mIs:BV_SfujgUGo:V_sGLiPBpWU NP_Top_Stories?i=3VQgJF97mIs:BV_SfujgUGo:F7zBnMyn0Lo NP_Top_Stories?d=qj6IDK7rITs NP_Top_Stories?i=3VQgJF97mIs:BV_SfujgUGo:gIN9vFwOqvQ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trudeau's Economic Recovery Plan

( since budgets apparently balance themselves😅😅😅😅)

************************

A golfer walks into the pro shop at the golf club and asks the golf pro if they sell ball markers.

The golf pro says they do, and they are $1.00.

The guy gives the golf pro a dollar.

The golf pro opens the register, puts the dollar in, and hands him a dime to use as the marker.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Liberal MP says Trudeau was hostile, angry, and screamed at her because she didn’t appreciate him

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau allegedly screamed at Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes when she originally informed him that she would not be seeking re-election this coming October.

According to a Globe and Mail article, the MP informed Trudeau that she would not be seeking re-election around the same time as Jody Wilson-Raybould’s resignation. 

She allegedly told the PM that political life had seriously harmed her family life, and in response, according to Ms. Chavannes, the Prime Minister grew hostile and yelled at her. Specifically, he allegedly claimed that the MP did not appreciate him, especially when he had provided her with so much.  

“He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn’t appreciate him, that he’d given me so much,” Caesar-Chavannes said.

A full week later, Caesar-Chavannes attempted to approach the PM again, and once more was met with “anger and hostility” before Mr. Trudeau allegedly stormed out of the room after staring her down, according to the Globe and Mail article.  

Highlighting the cross-partisan importance behind Ms. Caesar-Chavannes public outcry, she finished her statements by noting that she did not drink “the Kool-Aid and then sign my name in blood to this party politics thing. Maybe politics is not for me because I clearly don’t follow what the handbook says I’m supposed to do,” 

This Globe and Mail article follows a Tweet in which the MP publically called out the Prime Minister for his use of open leadership in speeches, while allegedly ignoring her.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/liberal-mp-says-trudeau-was-hostile-angry-and-screamed-at-her-because-she-didnt-appreciate-him/

 

https://torontosun.com/news/national/lilley-liberal-mp-celina-caesar-chavannes-cryptic-message

 

 

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Andrew Coyne: Why fight criminal charges in court when you can lobby?

 
‎Yesterday, ‎March ‎8, ‎2019, ‏‎6:02:56 PM | Andrew Coyne

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.”

There’s a reason no attorney general has ever overridden a DPP’s decision in a specific prosecution. It is the same reason the office of the DPP was set up in the first place: to insulate such decisions, so far as possible, from political interference.

Only in the most exceptional circumstances was it envisaged that the attorney general would overrule her — otherwise what’s the point of the DPP? And in no circumstances is the attorney general’s authority to be compromised — not by direct orders, not by veiled threats or by pressure of any kind, even in the guise of an endlessly repeated suggestion that she seek an outside opinion.

As it happens there are plenty of reasons to think the DPP, Kathleen Roussel, not only had the right to make the decision she did, but was right to do so. A reading of the relevant sections of the Criminal Code suggests that SNC-Lavalin was ineligible for a remediation agreement on multiple grounds: because of the severity of the crimes of which it is accused; because it has not admitted corporate responsibility; because it did not voluntarily disclose its alleged wrongdoing; because the chief argument for waving all these away, WHAT ABOUT THE JOBZ, is expressly precluded from consideration.

As such it would have been quite improper for Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former attorney general, to order her to do what the law forbids. But even if you disagree with their decisions, you are not the DPP, or the AG: as a matter of law — as a matter of constitutional principle — it is their call to make, each in their separate capacity.

So there are two layers of insulation protecting prosecutorial discretion. Astonishingly, the prime minister’s people appear to have tried to penetrate both. We have heard much of the many entreaties to the AG to lean on the DPP, by the prime minister, his principal secretary, his chief of staff, the clerk of the Privy Council, the finance minister, and his chief of staff, among others. Much less has been written about their repeated efforts, according to the former attorney general, to get at the director of public prosecutions without her.

For example, she testified to the Commons justice committee that in a phone call with her chief of staff, Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard, advisers to the prime minister, said “they hear that our deputy (justice) minister … thinks we can get the (Public Prosecution Service of Canada) to say ‘we think we should get some outside advice on this.’ ”

gary-clement-1.png?w=640&h=480

.

In another call, “they raised the idea of an ‘informal reach out’ to the DPP. My COS (chief of staff) said that she knew I was not comfortable with it, as it looked like and probably did constitute political interference. They asked whether that was true if it wasn’t the AG herself, but if it was her staff or the DM.” The deputy minister, for her part, “said that Finance had told her that they want to make sure that Kathleen understands the impact if we do nothing in this case.”

And not just the DPP. The prime minister’s people seem to have reached down even further into the prosecutorial ranks. Bouchard allegedly told her chief of staff he understood “that the individual Crown prosecutor wants to negotiate an agreement, but the director does not.” As Wilson-Raybould mused to the committee, “I can’t help but wonder why he would bring that up. How he would know that. How he garnered that information.”

Indeed. It is one thing for the AG to personally instruct the DPP in the manner the law prescribes: by a written directive, published in the Canada Gazette. “Informal reach outs” by political staff to the DPP and to other prosecutors are just wildly out of bounds.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My goodness and no surprise as Justin in effect says she is lying.

PMO denies 'hostility' in Trudeau's interactions with Liberal MP

The Prime Minister's Office says there was "absolutely no hostility" from Justin Trudeau towards Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes, despite allegations she's made against him.

 

Celina Caesar-Chavannes told the Globe and Mail Trudeau yelled at her

CBC News · Posted: Mar 09, 2019 12:34 PM ET | Last Updated: 13 minutes ago
 
celina-caesar-chavannes.jpg
Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes is not running in October's election. (Idil Mussa/CBC)

The Prime Minister's Office says there was "absolutely no hostility" from Justin Trudeau towards Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes, despite allegations she's made against him. 

The Whitby, Ont., MP says she was met with anger and hostility from the prime minister after she informed him she would not be seeking re-election in October. 

Caesar-Chavannes made the announcement last weekend, but informed Trudeau weeks earlier on Feb. 12. 

It was around that time the negative encounters happened, the MP first told the Globe and Mail. 

Because of Jody Wilson-Raybould's fresh resignation from cabinet, she told the Globe that Trudeau had asked her to wait for her own announcement and that he was worried about the optics of having two women of colour leave at the same time.

"He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn't appreciate him, that he'd given me so much," Caesar-Chavannes told that newspaper.

She alleges the hostility continued in interactions after that conversation.

Matt Pascuzzo, a spokesman for the PMO, says while there was no question the conversations in February were "frank," there was "absolutely no hostility."

Caesar-Chavannes declined to comment for this story.

'Remember your reactions?'

Earlier on Thursday while responding to allegations surrounding the SNC-Lavalin controversy, Trudeau said he hoped members of his caucus felt comfortable coming to him with issues. 

"I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?" Caesar-Chavannes tweeted after his comment. 

The prime minister doubled down on his messaging at an event in Ottawa on Saturday morning, saying the SNC-Lavalin affair is giving him pause to think about the way things have been dealt with.

Trudeau's office denies the conversations with her turned sour to the point of animosity. 

"The prime minister has deep respect for Celina Caesar-Chavannes," Pascuzzo said in the email to CBC News. 

"As the prime minister said on Thursday, he is committed to fostering an environment where ministers, caucus, and staff feel comfortable approaching him when they have concerns or disagreements – that happened here."

Caesar-Chavannes worked closely with the prime minister, including a stint as his parliamentary secretary until early 2017.

Watch | Trudeau spoke today on the erosion of trust in his office: 

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau calls SNC affair 'disagreement,' reiterates stance that there was no breakdown in the rule of law. 0:46

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Liberal MP says Trudeau was hostile, angry, and screamed at her because she didn’t appreciate him

While I'm not questioning the accuracy or validity of the statement or the feelings expressed, as is the case with Democrats (south of the border), I'm struck by the timing and self destructive nature of it. I might disagree with their methodology and political orientation, but these people are certainly smart enough to realize the damage they are doing to their own brand and I have some difficulty rationalizing the motivations. I always think that when things don't make sense, there is an agenda in play.

The DNC, as a for instance, seems bent on self destruction at the very time when people are searching for reasonable, thoughtful alternatives and stand ready to support those alternatives if they are seen to have merit. Here at home, my worst fear is that JT actually steps down as PM prior to the election. Is that what's behind all of this?... if so, it seems a smart tactical move in that context. The fact that someone is not telling the truth seems starkly evident  as the positions leave little in the way of middle ground and there seems to be a combined attack on his leadership. Often change is brought about by manufacturing a crisis and if it can be piggy backed on an existing one, so much better.

If we were to project a change in Liberal leadership, and assume that those machinations are already in play, how would JWR fare (as leader) in the next general election and how would the praise already heaped on her by the PC party contribute to her success? As is the case with SNC operations in Libya, I doubt we are seeing the full picture and we might be collectively appalled by it's cynical nature if ever we did.

Keep in mind that these are the same folks who openly condemn the anti-vaccination crowd for spreading misinformation while embracing the very same tactic in pursuit of their gun control agenda.

Although AOC related and thus off thread topic, it stands as an example of what I mean. Why give opponents such easy access to your soft underbelly?   This is (or at least should be) the easy stuff... If you can't control your own actions and avoid looking hypocritical with easy how will you handle tough and complex? Radical plans, by their nature, demand leadership from the front.

 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/company-founded-by-ocasio-cortez-in-2012-still-owes-1870-in-taxes

Edited by Wolfhunter
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And let’s not forget “Elbowgate “

Does Justin Trudeau have an anger management issue?

They say “hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”.

If that saying holds true then Trudeau is in big trouble because by now, he’s scorned several.

Last night, Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes revealed in a tell-all article in the Globe and Mail a very explosive side to our prime minister.

Her comments came shortly after the Liberal MP posted a vague and cryptic response to Justin Trudeau’s suggestion that real leadership was about fostering an environment where others can come to you with their concerns.

In her comment on Twitter the MP claimed, “I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?”

According to her, Justin Trudeau reacted to her announcement that she was not going to run for re-election in 2019 with wrathful anger.

“He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn’t appreciate him, that he’d given me so much,” said Caesar-Chavannes.

In another instance she confronted the prime minister about their unfortunate interaction, and what did he do? He stomped out of the room.

Again, I was met with hostility. This stare-down … then him stomping out of the room without a word,” related Caesar-Chavannes.

Not only are Trudeau’s comments patronizing, but they are patently false.

Caesar-Chavannes was not “given” anything by the prime minister, she is an elected official. Everything she has in her role as a Member of Parliament is on behalf of her constituents who voted for her in the last election.

This isn’t the first time that an altogether menacing and vindictive side of the prime minister has come to the forefront.

 

continued....

 

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/dzsurdzsa-does-justin-trudeau-have-an-anger-management-issue/

Edited by Jaydee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OUR MALE FEMINIST PM EASILY DISPARAGES WOMEN WHO GET IN HIS WAY

 

  • Calgary Sun
  • 10 Mar 2019
  • LORNE GUNTER lgunter@postmedia.com @sunlornegunter
img?regionKey=v4P1lLoA8NgWAaj6ISdhug%3d%3dJUSTIN T TRUDEAU AU

Remember when Prime Minister Justin Trudeau appointed his first cabinet in 2015? When asked to explain why the gender parity of his ministry, Trudeau replied “because it’s 2015.”

Media went ga-ga. He was young, had great hair and truly cared about women’s issues. Rolling Stone magazine even called Trudeau “the free world’s best hope.”

The gender-based virtue-signalling has continued since.

Last June, the Liberals passed a bill in the House of Commons that would make all future pipelines and energy megaprojects as dependent on gender impact studies as they would be on environmental and economic assessments.

And the last Liberal budget mentioned gender equality no fewer than 357 times.

Trudeau devoted his last speech to the World Economic Forum in Switzerland to women’s rights, and his government put the country’s economy at risk by insisting any new free trade pact with the U.S. include gender parity guarantees.

At the last G20 gathering in Argentina, our self-proclaimed feminist PM warned about the social destruction that can be suffered by local women when all-male construction crews move into rural areas.

But Trudeau is a fake feminist. When push comes to shove, Trudeau’s feminist behaviour disappears.

Before the recent resignations from his cabinet of two of its most prominent female ministers – Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott – the most famous example of Trudeau’s superficial feminism surrounded his “Kokanee Grope.”

Back in 2000, long before he entered politics, Trudeau was attending a music festival in the B.C. Interior and being interviewed by a female reporter who he “inappropriately handled.” When this incident resurfaced last summer, Trudeau’s feminist piety abandoned him.

Women never lie about sexual assault (a common feminist mantra) became, for Trudeau, “the same interactions can be experienced very differently” by men and women.

This was the same political leader who had Canada’s sexual assault laws changed to severely restrict the ability of an accused man to defend himself in court because Trudeau didn’t like the outcome of the Jian Ghomeshi trial and said his government was going to stand with the victims and their stories. But not, apparently, when that standard applied to him.

“I am not going to speak for the woman in question,” he said of the 18-year-old incident, “I would never presume to speak for her,” but she has her version of events and the PM has his. Which sounds an awful lot like a polite-society version of “Honest, Your Honour, I really thought she was into it, too.”

We’re seeing the same sort of tortured logic out of Trudeau and his loyalists concerning Jody Wilson-Raybould and her SNC testimony.

They keep referring to her by her first name, a slight that, while perhaps unintended, I cannot imagine them applying to a male minister who was giving them similar headaches.

And when this scandal broke, the Trudeau-ites first defence was to whisper to friendly reporters that “Jody” had always had a big ego, you know, and been difficult to work with. Translation: She’s a high-strung woman, so what can you expect?

Trudeau and his apologists, such as his former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, have also frequently fallen back on their explanation that different participants in the same event can perceive it very differently. Sounds like the Kokanee Grope again.

Even Finance Minister Bill Morneau, when Treasury Board President Jane Philpott resigned, explained it away as “Jane Philpott is a close personal friend of Jody Wilson-Raybould.” What does that mean? That their departures were more of a girls’-night adventure than a strong, principled stance?

Our feminist Liberal prime minister is only too happy to disparage women when they get in his way.

Which reminds me, remember when Trudeau elbowed New Democrat MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau in the chest when she got in his way during a 2016 Commons vote?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the glue gets thicker:

NP_Top_Stories?d=qj6IDK7rITs NP_Top_Stories?i=wkqzzUBKRq4:Q7anRc6cX2Y:gIN9vFwOqvQ

 

OECD announces it is monitoring SNC-Lavalin scandal, raising prospect Canada has violated international anti-bribery agreement

 
‎Today, ‎March ‎11, ‎2019, ‏‎48 minutes ago | Marie-Danielle Smith

OTTAWA — An international body announced Monday it is monitoring allegations that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his office attempted to politically interfere in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, which if true could put Canada in violation of a multilateral anti-bribery agreement.

The 36-country Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development, which includes the United States, the United Kingdom, France and others said Monday it would “closely monitor” investigations into the SNC-Lavalin affair by the House of Commons justice committee and the federal ethics commissioner.

“The OECD Working Group on Bribery is encouraged by these processes, and notes that the Canadian authorities stress that they are transparent and independent,” a statement reads. “The Working Group recognizes Canada’s willingness to keep it fully informed of developments in the proceedings, including at its next meeting in June 2019.”

Questions continue to swirl around former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould’s assertions that she faced inappropriate pressure and “veiled threats” to prevent criminal proceedings against the Montreal engineering firm, accused of committing bribery and fraud to facilitate business in Libya under former dictator Muammar Ghadafi.

As it stands, the firm faces prosecution and a possible 10-year ban on bidding for public contracts in Canada. Trudeau has argued he was looking out for Canadian jobs in discussing the matter with Wilson-Raybould and has admitted no wrongdoing.

But the allegations have harmed the prime minister’s reputation and garnered international media attention, putting the OECD on alert for a possible violation of its anti-bribery convention.

As a party to the anti-bribery convention Canada is committed to requiring “prosecutorial independence in foreign bribery cases,” according to the statement. “In addition, political factors such as a country’s national economic interest and the identity of the alleged perpetrators must not influence foreign bribery investigations and prosecutions.”

The question of of “national economic interest” has factored heavily into the controversy. SNC-Lavalin wants a deferred prosecution agreement, a tool for prosecutors that allows companies to pay a large fine and comply with strict rules rather than facing a criminal trial. Wilson-Raybould could legally overturn the Director of Public Prosecutions’s decision not to pursue that remedy, by providing written notice to the public. But in September she decided not to, and that’s when she said a “sustained” pressure campaign began. She was demoted from the attorney general position at a cabinet shuffle in January.

To offer a deferred prosecution agreement in the first place — a measure that the Liberal government inserted into the 2018 federal budget amid a lobbying campaign by SNC-Lavalin — prosecutors cannot use the “national economic interest” as a rationale. Although many have raised the concern that this invalidates Trudeau’s jobs argument, Canada’s most senior public servant, Michael Wernick, invoked the OECD in arguing last week at a committee hearing that “national” interest had to do with Canada’s performance vis-a-vis other countries, not with its economic performance in general. The OECD has written to Canadian authorities nonetheless, “confirming its concerns … in this matter.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

TRUDEAU’S ‘OFFENSIVE CONDUCT.’

THE PRIME MINISTER HAS VIOLATED KEY PROVISIONS OF WORKPLACE HARASSMENT LEGISLATION

  • Calgary Herald
  • 12 Mar 2019
  • KELLY MCPARLAND Twitter.com/KellyMcParland
img?regionKey=wK1QGg513Rv43IaXI3iICg%3d%3dCHRIS WATTIE / REUTERS Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his former principal secretary Gerald Butts have both pleaded ignorance as key to their defensive efforts, columnist Kelly McParland writes.

Apublication on workplace harassment, issued by the Treasury Board in Ottawa, provides a detailed guide to “improper or offensive conduct” in the workplace.

As any reasonably aware manager knows, it’s a minefield. Harassment can include anything from speaking too loudly, entering an office too often, paying too much attention to a subordinate’s performance, or failing to move away from others when passing gas.

Even complaining about someone who fails to move away from polite company while passing gas (or washing their feet in vinegar) could wind up in front of a tribunal.

The crucial part of the rules, however, is this: in most cases, the guidelines stipulate, “more than one act or event is needed.” And ignorance is no defence. The test is whether “the respondent knew or reasonably ought to have known that such behaviour would cause offence or harm.” The emphasis in both cases is the Treasury Board’s, which until recently was headed by Jane Philpott, one of the two cabinet members to step down over their dissatisfaction with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

The wording is significant because both Trudeau and his former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, have pleaded ignorance as key to their defence.

“I was not aware of that erosion of trust,” Trudeau said in reference to the breakdown in relations between Butts and Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former justice minister and attorney general.

Butts pleaded a similar lack of awareness, insisting he had no idea of the depth of Wilson-Raybould’s frustration at the repeated attempts to have her revisit her decision on SNC-Lavalin’s prosecution. When she raised her objections in opposing their plan to shuffle her out of her job, both he and Trudeau were taken aback, Butts testified.

Which, under the guidelines of Trudeau’s own government, is no defence whatsoever. Wilson-Raybould’s appearance before the justice committee made clear that both tests of a harassment violation were met in the government’s actions. The pressure to have her rethink her position occurred more than once, and both Butts and Trudeau knew, or should have known.

Rather than acknowledge this, the prime minister has attempted to blame Wilson-Raybould. He has cited the fact she didn’t come to him with her complaints — though she says she did make her views clear to him, directly, at a meeting they had last September. She also complained to Butts, and to other aides and officials in the upper ranks of the cabinet and the Prime Minister’s Office. If Trudeau remained deaf to it, the law says it’s his fault, not hers. As he acknowledged himself, “I should have known.”

The treatment of Wilson-Raybould appears to violate several other tests used to establish harassment included in the guidelines:

“The complainant was offended or harmed, including the feeling of being demeaned, belittled, personally humiliated or embarrassed, intimidated or threatened;

“The behaviour occurred in the workplace or at any location or any event related to work,

“There was a series of incidents or one severe incident which had a lasting impact on the individual.”

Wilson-Raybould testified that she felt “veiled threats” as part of “a consistent and sustained effort by many people in the government to seek to politically interfere in the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.” And there is no doubt her unexpected removal from Justice — which she described as her “dream job” — had a lasting impact.

Trudeau and Butts both maintain it hadn’t occurred to them that Wilson-Raybould might resist a transfer to Indigenous Services, though Michael Wernick, clerk of the Privy Council, told the justice committee everyone in Ottawa knew she’d never want the job.

“She did not ever want to be one of the Indigenous affairs ministers,” he said. “She made that very clear. She did not want to be the Indigenous Services minister … and be seen as the Indian agent for her own people. She’s made that clear in public.”

Yet they professed to be shocked when she turned down the job — Butts said he’d never in his life heard of a person refusing a cabinet post. And in response she was offered a position many in Ottawa consider a demotion, a view that might not be fair, but which Butts and Trudeau would have been aware of.

To recap, according to his government’s guidelines, the prime minister violated key provisions of workplace harassment legislation, and followed up by removing the complainant from her job and assigning her to a post that could be reasonably deemed inferior to the one she had. If he was an office manager at … oh, let’s say a Montreal engineering firm … and treated an employee like that, he’d be lucky to hang on to his job. The prime minister says he experienced the situation differently, but Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes says that when she told him she was not running for re-election, around the same time as the SNCLavalin crisis, he treated her with “hostility” and “anger,” eventually “stomping out of the room without a word.”

Politics might be considered different from a normal workplace. Numerous Liberals have made the argument that debates over policy positions are commonplace, and perfectly normal. It’s what politicians do. Though they’ve see-sawed over whether undue pressure was ever exerted, they’ve settled on the line that no one meant any harm, and if Wilson-Raybould had a problem, she should have spoken up.

It’s a position that won’t wash. Wilson-Raybould did speak up, repeatedly. Her boss, the prime minister, should have known, and acted accordingly. Instead he shifted her from the job she held, and loved, to one that she was sure to reject — a reaction he should also have foreseen. When she turned it down he shuffled her off to a post widely viewed as a dumping ground.

Trudeau now says he appreciates that things could have been handled better, that he’s learned a lesson (though he doesn’t say what the lesson is). While insisting he had no idea his justice minister was so upset, “I now understand that she saw it differently.”

Great. But it’s no excuse. What Trudeau did wouldn’t be tolerated in any office across Canada that abides by Treasury Board standards. But it seems to be in his.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"As for the pensioners that Butts and Trudeau worry about so much, their concern rings hollow in light of the Sears situation. When the retail giant declared bankruptcy in 2017, its 18,000 retirees lost health and insurance benefits and saw their already modest pensions slashed. Despite election promises to protect pensioners by putting them at the front of the line when companies go under, the Liberals decided federal intervention would be too complicated. As Trudeau said at the time: “We have compassion for the Sears’ pensioners plight. But there are no easy answers.”

Meanwhile, the prime minister is willing to move heaven and earth and principled cabinet ministers to salvage jobs and pensions that are probably not threatened. Engineering industry insiders predict up to 9,000 new engineering jobs in coming years as the infrastructure money continues to flow. Any professionals or skilled tradespeople laid off by SNC-Lavalin should not stay unemployed for long. There is more than one engineering company in the country, including many without SNC-Lavalin’s blemished record."

 

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/03/11/team-trudeau-out-played-by-its-corporate-pals/191727

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another Island Vacation.

As SNC-Lavalin affair simmered, Trudeau flew to Florida for a break

The prime minister was spotted on North Captiva Island, a remote tourist destination accessible only by charter boat

 

As another round of SNC-Lavalin revelations broke over the weekend, Justin Trudeau was spotted taking a breather in a remote corner of Southwest Florida.

“Canada’s prime minister, embroiled in a political scandal, is now escaping to Southwest Florida,” announced NBC 2, a local news affiliate who got exclusive word of the visiting national leader.

The broadcaster dispatched a reporter to North Captiva Island, a largely recreational island where Trudeau reportedly rented two large homes for his family and entourage. For much of the prime minister’s visit, the affiliate also kept up a live feed on the prime ministerial plane, a “maple-leaf-emblazoned” Bombardier Challenger parked at Page Field, a small airport close to Fort Myers, Florida.

North Captiva Island is accessible only by charter boat, and cars are banned, with the only motorized transportation being golf carts. However, Trudeau appears to have been brought to the island by a vessel with U.S. Customs and Border Protection.

The NBC2 report described a team of 40 “Secret Service” protecting the prime minister and his family from a fleet of golf carts. Trudeau’s typical bodyguards are plainclothes RCMP who closely resemble the Secret Service details that typically surround U.S. presidents and VIPs.

However, as a visiting dignitary, it’s possible that Trudeau was supplied with U.S. Secret Service agents for added protection. His visit did indeed pull in assistance from local law enforcement, including a marine unit of the local Lee County sheriff’s office.

21x175_770b_9.jpg?w=590&quality=60&strip=allA 2011 photo of the Challenger jet typically used to transport the prime minister of Canada. Andre Forget/QMI Agency

Trudeau is one of approximately 3.5 million Canadians who visit Florida every year. Canadians also constitute 27 per cent of the state’s foreign real estate buyers, purchasing $7 billion in Florida properties in 2017 alone.

The state is also notable as the frequent weekend getaway for the incumbent U.S. president, with Donald Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort located almost directly east of North Captiva Island on Florida’s east coast.

The Trudeau family itself has long ties to Florida, with Orlando being where Justin’s grandfather, Charles-Émile Trudeau, died of a heart attack in 1935 while touring with the Montreal Royals baseball team, of whom he was a part owner.

123.png?w=590The closest NBC-2 was able to get to the Canadian prime minister. Trudeau is reportedly visible through the windows of this U.S. Customs and Border Protection vessel. Screenshot/nbc-2.com

While the Canadian public is normally informed of Trudeau’s whereabouts, all bets are off when he takes private vacations. For a similar Florida vacation in early 2018, officials in the prime minister’s office said only that he was “spending private time with his family in Florida.”

On Monday at approximately 6 p.m., the prime ministerial Challenger jet was seen departing Page Field.

Quote

I wonder who he rented from or was he hosted?

Behold, you've stumbled upon a tropical island paradise. 

  •  
 

Remote and undiscovered, North Captiva Island is accessible only by ferry, private boat or small plane. This private island community is reminiscent of old Florida as it once was during a simpler time. Just 3 miles offshore, this tropical paradise is part of the Lee Island Coast barrier island chain in South West Florida. Strewn across an expansive preserve, we invite you to vacation in million dollar homes bordered by miles of pristine sand beaches. Our vacation rentals in Florida are a natural enclave secluded and protected by natural beauty. Travel by golf cart or bicycle on our sandy native trails. Here, you will find no cars, no crowds or paved roads.

North Captiva Island offers a small town impression with just enough amenities to suite your family needs. We welcome you to join us for a truly memorable experience of a self-effacing refuge, where a slower pace is expectant. Get started now by browsing our selection of fine vacation rentals properties in Florida. All are fully equipped with our resort package for your convenience and setup for comfort with all the luxuries of your own home to be found right here, in paradise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well you can't be too careful when thye majority of a country wants to kick your ass.

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a good summation of what is currently going on in Canada, and how fortunate we are it's all we have to complain about....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/canadas-no-sex-no-money-scandal-could-topple-trudeau/ar-BBUIhMe?ocid=spartandhp&fbclid=IwAR00NSFvcsWGB2MkLXV_rOvN2h917Dfd1wAuIPo2ceJylqn4Ej0Qv62NU3Y

TORONTO — There's no money, no sex and nothing illegal happened. This is what passes for a scandal in Canada.

U.S. President Donald Trump has been engulfed in allegations involving possible collusion with Russia and secret payments to buy the silence of a porn star. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is facing a controversy that seems trivial by comparison, but it could topple him in elections later this year.

Two high-profile women ministers in Trudeau's Cabinet, including Canada's first indigenous justice minister, resigned in protest, and his top aide and best friend quit too.

The former justice minister and attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, says Trudeau and senior members of his government pressured her in a case involving a major Canadian engineering company accused of corruption related to its business dealings in Libya. Trudeau reportedly leaned on the attorney general to instruct prosecutors to reach the equivalent of plea deal, which would avoid a criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, because he felt that jobs were at stake.

"People south of the border would be astonished to think that this is the type of scandal that they have in Canada," said Eddie Goldenberg, a former adviser to former Prime Minister Jean Chretien.

Many countries would be jealous of a scandal that went no further than a prime minster asking another minister to do something she is legally entitled to do, Goldenberg said.

"I just don't really see it as a scandal," he said. "There is a political correctness here. Nobody wants to go after an indigenous woman minister. It's become politically incorrect to question the former minister."

Trudeau has said he asked Wilson-Raybould to revisit her decision not to instruct prosecutors and said she agreed to consider that. He denied applying any inappropriate pressure, saying he and his officials were only pointing out that prosecution could endanger thousands of jobs.

SNC-Lavalin has pleaded not guilty to fraud and corruption charges related to allegations it paid about $35 million (CA$47 million) in bribes to public officials in Libya between 2001 and 2011.

"It's a pseudo-scandal. It's crap. What the hell? You are doing business in Libya and you are not bribing?" said Robert Bothwell, a professor of Canadian history and international relations at the University of Toronto. "It does suggest to me that the director of public prosecutions ... is also nuts. And so is Wilson-Raybould. These people are delusional."

Wilson-Raybould was demoted from her role as attorney general and justice minister in January as part of a Cabinet shuffle by Trudeau. She has testified that she believes she lost the justice job because she did not give in to "sustained" pressure to instruct the director of public prosecutions to negotiate a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin.

That solution would have avoided a potential criminal conviction that would bar the company from receiving any federal government business for a decade. The company is a major employer in Quebec, Trudeau's home province. It has about 9,000 employees in Canada and more than 50,000 worldwide.

The company publicly led the lobbying charge for a law that allows for deferred prosecution agreements as a way to resolve the criminal charges it faces. The new attorney general has not ruled out approving a settlement.

Wilson-Raybould has said herself that the pressure from Trudeau and others was not illegal and that she was not explicitly instructed to do a remediation agreement.

Gerald Butts, Trudeau's former principal secretary and best friend who resigned, said nothing inappropriate was alleged until after Wilson-Raybould left the Cabinet, suggesting she felt sour grapes about losing her dream job.

Opposition Conservative Andrew Scheer leader has demanded that Trudeau resign, saying he tried to interfere in a criminal prosecution. Canadian media have covered the story as intensely as American networks have covered Trump, noted Nelson Wiseman, a professor at the University of Toronto.

"Trudeau would not be able to get away with what Trump does because the political cultures and the state of political polarization of the two countries are still quite different," Wiseman said.

The differences among Canadian media outlets, for example, are "relatively narrow compared to the chasms between Fox and MSNBC or CNN. The American media are reporting on two different worlds. The Canadian media are reporting on the same Wilson-Raybould-Trudeau story," Wiseman added.

Daniel Beland, a politics professor at McGill University in Montreal, said Trudeau has framed himself differently than Trump. Trump said sympathetic things about Russia during the campaign and was elected despite that and other controversies, giving him "the sense that he can do anything and his base will still follow him."

Trudeau, meanwhile, promised transparency while describing himself as a feminist who was also determined to right the wrongs against Canada's indigenous people. Women make up half of his cabinet.

"He depicted himself as a feminist, as someone who believes in indigenous reconciliation, and then you have two of his top female Cabinet ministers resign, and they are depicting him in a very different light," Beland said.

Trudeau said he tried to foster an environment where his lawmakers can come to him with concerns, but one of his female Liberal party colleagues, Celina Caesar-Chavannes, took issue with that, tweeting, "I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?"

"When you add women, please do not expect the status quo. Expect us to make correct decisions, stand for what is right and exit when values are compromised," she also tweeted.

Caesar-Chavannes, who is not running for re-election, has issued messages of support for Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, a respected Cabinet minister who said she lost confidence in how the government has handled the affair.

"It is a fundamental doctrine of the rule of law that our Attorney General should not be subjected to political pressure or interference regarding the exercise of her prosecutorial discretion in criminal cases," Philpott wrote in the resignation letter to Trudeau.

Other Liberal lawmakers have expressed confidence in Trudeau. The federal election is in October.

Antonia Maioni, McGill University's dean of arts, said citizens of every democracy will look at the Trump scandals and say everything else is small potatoes.

But, she added, "I'm not sure Trump is a good reference point here. Leaders fall in parliamentary systems for many other reasons beyond personal scandal."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Many countries would be jealous of a scandal that went no further than a prime minster asking another minister to do something she is legally entitled to do, Goldenberg said.

 "I just don't really see it as a scandal," he said.

Of course Eddie would see it that way......a little perspective, please.    Eddie was Chrétien’s right hand man that brought us the Sponsorship scandal.

Quote

The program ran from 1996 until 2004, when broad corruption was discovered in its operations and the program was discontinued. Illicit and even illegal activities within the administration of the program were revealed, involving misuse and misdirection of public funds intended for government advertising in Quebec. Such misdirections included sponsorship money awarded to Liberal Party-linked ad firms in return for little or no work, in which firms maintained Liberal organizers or fundraisers on their payrolls or donated back part of the money to the Liberal Party

 

Liberal spin doctors at work...nothing to see here other than obstruction of justice by the PM.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, st27 said:

Liberal spin doctors at work...nothing to see here other than obstruction of justice by the PM.

 

7529B5F3-79E7-47E9-B724-39A1D88B8085.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not a coverup?  Next they will be selling low tide waterfront property in Florida.

Liberal MP who led committee shutdown denies coverup, says it's time for 'shift' in SNC-Lavalin debate

The Liberal MP who triggered the sudden adjournment of an emergency meeting of the Commons justice committee Wednesday insists there's been no attempt by the government to cover up the SNC-Lavalin affair, and says it's time to turn the page on the controversy.

Francis Drouin says he sees no reason to recall Jody Wilson-Raybould to committee

Kathleen Harris · CBC News · Posted: Mar 14, 2019 12:13 PM ET | Last Updated: an hour

The Liberal MP who triggered the sudden adjournment of an emergency meeting of the Commons justice committee Wednesday insists there's been no attempt by the government to cover up the SNC-Lavalin affair, and says it's time to turn the page on the controversy.

Francis Drouin suggested the opposition Conservative and NDP members were playing politics by calling the meeting during March break, since a session to determine next steps had already been scheduled for Mar. 19.

The opposition members forced Thursday's meeting to debate a motion to invite former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould back before the committee to testify for a second time about what she claims was a concerted effort by high-level government officials, including people in the Prime Minister's Office, to interfere with her decision to allow bribery charges against SNC-Lavalin to proceed to trial.

Drouin said he believes it's unnecessary to bring Wilson-Raybould back. He said she can provide the committee with a written statement and noted she's testified before the committee for nearly four hours already.

"I think I've heard enough," he said in an interview with CBC Radio's Ottawa Morning. "Ms. Raybould has said, in response to Elizabeth May and Nathan Cullen, that nothing illegal was committed, nothing criminal was committed. So now the conversation has to shift between whether or not the attorney general and the minister of justice, those roles should be split."

Drouin tabled the motion to adjourn Thursday's meeting less than 30 minutes in, even though the meeting was scheduled to last two hours. That prompted opposition members to shout angry accusations about a "cover-up" and call the actions of Liberal committee members "disgusting" and "despicable."

The committee meets next on Tuesday to decide whether Wilson-Raybould and others should be called to testify. That meeting likely will be held behind closed doors, as is the practice for most meetings where potential witnesses are being discussed. Had Wednesday's meeting not been adjourned, MPs would have discussed a motion to bring Wilson-Raybould back to testify — which would have required Liberal MPs to publicly state their positions.

Conservatives call it the 'Justin committee'

Most of the justice committee members are Liberal MPs, which gives them a lot of control over how the proceedings unfold. Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre claimed yesterday that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is directing the Liberal members and said it should be called the "Justin committee" rather than the "justice committee."

"Pierre Poilievre is a great political actor. But I don't think Mr. Trudeau is calling the shots," Drouin told Ottawa Morning host Robyn Bresnahan.

Drouin also said he does not believe the matter merits a public independent inquiry.

The NDP has been calling for such an inquiry, while the Conservatives have been calling for Trudeau's resignation and an RCMP investigation.

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion, who has taken a prolonged leave of absence for health reasons, is also examining the SNC-Lavalin affair to determine if ethics rules were broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They're all greasy.  It's all just political theater in an election year.  There are more flip flops happening than on a Florida beach. The second last line says it all.....

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/opposition-is-a-caricature-and-scheer-is-a-humid-performer-neil-macdonald/ar-BBUKMBr?ocid=spartandhp

Back in December, NDP MP Charlie Angus approvingly retweeted a Christmas wish on Twitter calling for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to fire then-Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

"The Justice file has been completely bungled" quoted Angus, who accused Wilson-Raybould of all sorts of malevolence.

But of course that was then. To hear Angus tell it now, Wilson-Raybould is a person of great integrity who put her job on the line over principle and has suffered the consequences of her courage. At a guess, Angus's amended position is that Wilson-Raybould's demotion in January was a bloody travesty.

Conservative MP Lisa Raitt, in 2016, accused Wilson-Raybould of "spewing lies" in the House of Commons. Now, though, she dotingly believes every word Wilson-Raybould utters. After Wilson-Raybould rose in the Commons to say she wanted to speak "her truth," Opposition members erupted in a standing ovation. Wilson-Raybould, says Raitt, wisely warned us all that we must "speak truth to power." (Yes, a former minister in Stephen Harper's government actually said that).

Oh, and that new provision allowing negotiated settlements rather than prosecutions of companies like SNC-Lavalin? The one opposition MPs accuse the government of sneakily burying in last year's budget so they could help their corporate pals? It was examined, and approved unanimously by the Commons Justice committee Unanimously. Meaning all parties. Conservative MP Rob Nicholson declared, on behalf of his party, "We're completely supportive of it."

But most of this flippity-floppity stuff goes largely unreported. The respect and admiration of opposition MPs for Wilson-Raybould, and their deep suspicion of the underhanded government decision to let big companies escape rule of law is the new "narrative," to use that awful, hackneyed word.

Why? Because, well, they're opposition MPs, and inconsistency is their parliamentary privilege. They operate in an expectation-free zone. There is no supposition that they will show temperance, nuance, forbearance or shame. They can yell whatever they like and reporters will report it, because democracy, etc.

Publicly, former Liberal leader John Turner used to say that "the job of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is to oppose." Privately, though, he had a better term for Question Period and other televised political venues: "Bullshit Theatre."

He always got a laugh, but it was more than a joke. Turner was acknowledging that the opposition, with its constant, unstinting indignation about everything the government says or does, is a caricature.

For a variety of reasons, not the least of which is their struggle for a share of ink and airtime in the news media, opposition politicians behave like a pack of scent hounds. They have no shame because they know the system is unkind to anyone who does. Their rhetoric is both predictable and extreme; they believe it must be so, in order to make headlines, and they may be right. Still, anyone else who talked the way they do would be regarded as a crank.

Right now, the most humid performance is that of Conservative leader Andrew Scheer.

Appeal to the RCMP

In Scheer's estimation, the prime minister is "disgraced," up to "something sinister," running a coverup, and corrupt in the manner of a Third World despot. Trudeau, Scheer tells us, pressures, harasses, subverts the law and gags elected MPs. And he should be investigated for what are clearly crimes, something Scheer has written to the RCMP demanding.

Now, Trudeau might not be a particularly inspiring, or even articulate fellow. His gurgly moralizing is aggravating. But a sinister, disgraced, subversive, corrupt criminal? Because he tried to get his justice minister to change her decision about a prosecution, to persuade her to use a new law the Conservatives supported, then eventually accepted her decision, and then moved her to Veterans Affairs, an assignment she herself, truth-teller that she is, said at the time was not a demotion?

(Not only did Wilson-Raybould declare that reassigning cabinet ministers is the absolute prerogative of the prime minister, she added: "I would say that I can think of no world in which I would consider working for our veterans in Canada as a demotion.")

And yet, crime, corrupt, sinister, coverup, criminal, disgraced, bad, rotten, lawbreaker.

One suspects Andrew Scheer doesn't actually believe that, but he's the opposition leader, and doesn't have to.

With Scheer heading the opposition, we are supposed to forget that the government his party formed under Stephen Harper happily imposed its will on Canada's judiciary, using minimum-sentencing legislation to interfere with judicial discretion.

Or that Harper's Conservatives, having denounced Belinda Stronach for crossing the floor to join the Liberal government in 2005 (a betrayal of her constituents, we were told) happily received Liberal David Emerson, who crossed to join Harper's government in 2006, and then booted Conservative MP Garth Turner from the caucus after he protested (speaking truth to power, really) that Emerson should seek a new mandate from his constituents, the way the party had argued Stronach should have.

To be clear, Trudeau's mob is no different. They went from screeching that the Mike Duffy affairwas proof of utterly corrupt government, and declaring that the Canadian people demand transparency and answers from Harper, to running an administration at least as opaque and secretive, once in power.

("The Canadian people," incidentally, is probably the most-quoted entity in the opposition benches. The opposition by definition was rejected by voters, yet Scheer apparently consults them every day, and knows their heart intimately).

Top-down control

If Scheer ever does achieve power, it's a safe bet he'll exercise the same sort of top down control every other prime minister does. Does anyone believe he won't? That he wouldn't, perhaps, order Tory MPs on the Justice committee to abruptly adjournrather than take more political damage? I humbly suggest he would.

But back to Bullshit Theatre.

It's tempting to think that things have gone downhill, that there was once a gravitas and comity that has disappeared.

Says David Moscrop, a political scientist at the University of Ottawa who has just authored the beautifully-titled book Too Dumb For Democracy: "If you were to put Justin Trudeau, Andrew Scheer, and Jagmeet Singh beside Bob Stanfield, Pierre Trudeau and … Ed Broadbent, I know what team I'd pay attention to."

But, says Moscrop, it's never really been much better.

"There's no golden age. The introduction of television cameras has amplified the nonsense, and caused politicians to lean into the theatrics. And social media has exacerbated it further."

Only technique has changed, he says. Now, whenever the opposition (or the governing party) has a fit of outrage, they do two things:

"They immediately send out a fundraising request expressing the outrage and asking for five dollars, and they create a data-mining site."

Example: LetHerSpeak.Ca, the website set up by the Conservatives (although you have to go right to the end of the page, and examine the shaded fine print, to find out who's behind it, which is sort of a tacit acknowledgement of opposition credibility).

The nominal purpose of the site is to help The Canadian People demand that Trudeau un-gag Wilson-Raybould, because, you know, she really hasn't had a chance to speak much. Coincidentally, the site gives voters a chance to disclose their names, email addresses and postal codes. If they haven't read the shaded fine print at the bottom, and don't know they're supplying data to Conservative election campaign managers, well, they should buy reading glasses.

"It's the new frontier of bullshit," says Moscrop.

And we journalists are all just theatre critics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, deicer said:

...up to "something sinister," running a coverup, and corrupt in the manner of a Third World despot. Trudeau, Scheer tells us, pressures, harasses, subverts the law and gags elected MPs.

We still don't know what the bribes were or what form they took. Cash for contracts, payed within a nation where bribes are a way of life is one thing. Money laundering and escape plans in violation of UN sanctions AND while OUP operations were ongoing is another. I can find no information on this and I wonder if there is a reason for it. Attempting to get a deferred prosecution while knowing (if it's true) is treasonous and criminal in my view. 

If it is simply cash bribes we are talking about it's a nothing burger IMO.  How is it that no one seems to care what form these bribes took and who knew what and when they knew it. As far as I can tell, they (SNC) were deeply involved in Libya between 2008 and 2011..... and yes, it matters big time what they were doing. This investigation started during the Harper government and has been a long time coming. What exactly were the Liberals willing to let them get away with? I can assure you that veterans of OUP would like to know even if you don't.

 

Edited by Wolfhunter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go: https://globalnews.ca/news/5030733/saadi-gaddafis-toronto-condo/

March 14, 2019 4:45 am

Updated: March 14, 2019 1:53 pm

The Gaddafi condo: Redecorated at SNC-Lavalin’s expense, luxury Toronto suite sits unused amid UN inaction 

The luxury unit is a remnant of Gaddafi excess. Saadi Gaddafi bought it during a three-month visit to Canada in 2008.

A general in the Libyan special forces and briefly a professional soccer player, but best known as Col. Gaddafi’s playboy son, he paid $1.55 million.

The hosts of his Canadian junket, executives at SNC-Lavalin, spent another $200,000 redecorating it for their guest, the RCMP alleged in an application for a warrant to search the company’s Montreal office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this