Sign in to follow this  

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

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Wolfhunter said:

All of this and we still don't know the specifics of what SNC is charged with, no one seems to have noticed this, no one seems to care about this. and no one seems to think it matters that the government doesn't want you to know. 


The charges allege that between August 16, 2001 and September 20, 2011, SNC-Lavalin contravened the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act by attempting to bribe several public officials in “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” to the tune of over $47 million.

During that same period, the RCMP also alleges that SNC-Lavalin also “by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means,” defrauded several Libyan companies and public agencies of property of money or services valued at nearly $130 million, including the “Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,” the “Management and Implementation Authority of the Great Man Made River Project” and the “General People’s Committee for Transport Civil Aviation Authority” of Libya, Lican Drilling Co. Ltd. and the “Organization for Development of Administrative Centers” of Benghazi, based in Libya.

“Corruption of foreign officials undermines good governance and sustainable economic development” said Assistant CommissionerGilles Michaud , Commanding Officer of the RCMP’s National Division, in a statement.

“The charges laid today demonstrate how the RCMP continues to support Canada’s international commitments and safeguard its integrity and reputation.”

The RCMP statement also noted that three individuals have already been charged in relation to this investigation and the charges stem from Project Assistance, which was first initiated in 2011.

Not sure what you mean by 'specifics'. If you're talking about specific, itemized evidence underlying the charges I think it's pretty standard for that to be withheld from the public until presentation at trial.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing demonstrates Liberal-ludicrous better than Justin Trudeau’s provocation, escalation, and justification of his SNC-Lavalin scandal.

It will forever stand as the ultimate testament to the more vulgar phrase that best describes his party’s collective conduct in that matter.

Namely, “batshit crazy.”

The etymology of that term is unclear. More about that in a bit.

What is clear is that Trudeau seems determined to make his party the ultimate poster child for both descriptors by booting Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott out of the Liberal caucus at its meeting on Wednesday (April 3).  

I have seen a number of elected members kicked out of caucus in my time. Usually for acts of wrongdoing.

But never have I witnessed someone turfed from their own party for doing the right thing and for refusing to do something patently wrong.

This might be a first in the Commonwealth: two MPs being ejected from a governing party caucus for refusing to do or support activities that might even turn out to be criminal in their inappropriate application and/or means of execution.

Turfing Canada’s first Indigenous attorney general from her office—she believes, for defending the tenet of prosecutorial independence from the prime minister’s relentless assaults—was nuts enough.

But forcing Puglaas and Philpott (P&P) to leave the Liberal caucus suggests a whole new level of batshit crazy. 

One designed to give LavScam that “extra push over the cliff” by raising its volume to “11”, as it were—just like Nigel Tufnel’s ampin Spinal Tap.

For weeks now, the lead advocate of that “retributive justice” for the sake of Liberal “unity” has been the loopy Sheila Copps, who has been pushing for that punishment on Twitter. 

Her addled advice ascended to new feverish heights in the wake of JWR’s damning new evidence and recording, as the Hill Times reported. Multiple Liberals have piled on.

Punish the “truth teller” and her “bestie”, Jane Philpott, for having the temerity to put the Liberals’ avowed principles ahead of the prime minister’s pressure to show both women “who’s boss”.

It’s all too reminiscent of that lyric from the disgusting old Arthur Godrey nugget, “Slap ‘er down, agin, paw”.

“We don't want our neighbors talkin' 'bout our kin—slap her down again, pa”. 

Only in the sorry LavScam song, the two women that the Liberal “family” is urging its patriarchal patron to punish are the only truly virtuous ones because of how they have stayed true to oaths.

Because of how they have refused to go silently into the night about all the dirty deeds that have gone on behind closed doors in the PMO, including the rough justice meted out on JWR at Trudeau’s hand.

It’s rather ironic that the person now leading the charge to put P&P in their place is Copps. Not so long ago, she of “I’m nobody’s baby fame” put then justice minister and attorney general, Conservative MP John Crosbie, in his place for trying to make her clam up.

What we are witnessing, Canada, is the very definition of taking Liberal-ludicrous to batshit crazy.

Kick your party’s most beloved women and its leading champion for reconciliation once again in the teeth, with new malignant intent that no one could misinterpret.

Do that, moreover, on the eve of a crucial by-election in Nanaimo-Ladysmith where the NDP is fielding the vice-president of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Chief Bob Chamberlin, as its candidate.

Do it only a few days after 500 supporters turned up at a feast in the KwinWatsi Big House to honour and celebrate the courage and conviction demonstrated by Puglaas.

Who has only shown all Canadians why she is so worthy of her Indigenous name, as a woman of noble heritage and a truth-teller by nature, who is now suddenly despised by those who want to banish her from their den of liars.

Do it only a week after the prime minister was forced to apologize for mocking membersof the Grassy Narrows First Nation.

Whose members are suffering from mercury poisoning and whose repeated protests over the years have mostly fallen on deaf ears. 

Only batshit-crazy Liberals would think that that will advance the cause of reconciliation, which the prime minister has proved over and over again is just so much lip service in his broader b.s. game of identity politics.

Only they would think that the way to reverse their party’s flagging fortunes with women voters is to show Dr. Philpott and JWR the back of their hand for refusing to be cowed by the one man who really deserves to be shown the door.

Then again, absolutely nothing about how the Liberals have responded to this scandal so far has made the slightest sense.

Their ludicrous efforts to shut down the never-ending story they have perpetuated in the process only betray their unbridled penchant for self-flagellation.

It all seems like so much self-inflicted pain for pain’s sake.

Only those Liberals who are so blinded by the suffering they have invited would want to vilify the two individuals who most Canadians now view as the heroines in a Shakespearean drama that is also a national tragedy in its own right.

A tragedy of seriously damaging consequence to the rule of law. As well as to public confidence in Canada’s highest elected official and his office.

A bizarre tragedy born of partisan concerns that surely now makes many Canadians wonder: what spell or special power in God’s name might SNC-Lavalin have over the prime minister that made him so completely lose his marbles?

Not that I am suggesting there is anything nefarious in that respect, which I certainly don’t mean to imply.

I am just baffled by what is so special about that one company and/or its people that would drive Trudeau to throw all caution to the wind as he did.

I am at a loss to divine what could possibly motivate his appalling effort to land that firm a special deal to avoid a trial for bribery and corruption. To so recklessly lean on his AG to intervene in a criminal prosecution, in a way that had never been done before.

I simply can’t fathom why he would go out on such a legally brittle and politically precarious limb for SNC-Lavalin.

Why would he so pressure his top legal adviser into overruling the independent director of public prosecutions and offering that company a deferred prosecution agreement, which both of them had deemed inappropriate?

What would cause Trudeau to go as far as he did to bend his attorney general to his will?

To risk a scandal of the type and magnitude that she repeatedly tried to prevent and warned against, all for naught?

I can’t imagine that it was any concern about the loss of future political donations from that company, which had illegally contributed over $100,000 to the Liberals.

After all, that particular self-described Canadian “Crown jewel” has cleaned up its act under its new management. 

It evidently holds no financial sway whatsoever over Trudeau or his party, as it might have had in that dark era of yesteryear, back when it allegedly used cash in inappropriate and potentially criminal ways to advance its corporate interests.

What would so consume Trudeau with such irrational intent as to ignore JWR’s pleas and warnings to just stop his political interference—if only for his own sake?

That is, apart from the fear of losing votes in his own riding and also losing seats in Quebec.

Were the threats of Canadian job losses and its head office closure ever as real as he might have imagined and has repeatedly suggested?

Certainly not, according to the company’s president and CEO.

Neil Bruce flatly denies that he and his agents ever said or did anything to put those false threats in the prime minister’s perfectly quaffed head, and I believe him.

Was Trudeau so smitten by the arguments advanced by SNC lobbyists that he was afraid to let justice takes its own independently administered course?

Or is there yet more to this story than meets the eye that we may yet learn from the ethics commissioner, from perhaps the RCMP, or from new evidence offered by P&P in Parliament? In the event they get the boot and decide to do even more to “put up” rather than “shut up”. 

What more than we have been so far told about SNC-Lavalin’s situation did the prime minister find so compelling that he felt obliged to personally intervene in that company’s criminal prosecution? When every rational and ethical fiber in him should have screamed, “CRA-ZY. Don’t do it!”

Raw charm, perhaps?

The magnetic presence of Neil Bruce? Or the irresistible allures of the multiple overtures made by him or his agents and/or legal representatives?

Do tell. I mean, to make sense of the insane.

Because it is the absence of rationality that defies comprehension as it also serves to breed suspicions.

It raises so many doubts and suspicions about personal connections and political ties that might go a long way toward explaining the incomprehensible pressure exerted on JWR by all the prime minister’s men. 

All to obtain a benefit for SNC-Lavalin that Neil Bruce swears he never requested as being warranted on economic grounds—that outlawed “national economic interest” rationale for granting a DPA—which Trudeau’s apologists tried so hard to reframe as a “public interest” argument. 

We may never know. But Liberal-ludicrous loves to keep us guessing.

Now the Liberal caucus seems poised to amp its own crazy up a notch by casting into exile the ones who blew the whistle on Trudeau’s recondite reasoning and calamitous conduct into exile.

They stand to do that for a leader who most Canadians now disapprove of, largely because of how he has bullied and shot the messengers for their efforts to speak truth to his power.

Which brings me back to the etymology of “batshit crazy.”

Urban Dictionary explains it this way:

“A person who is batshit crazy is certifiably nuts. The phrase has origins in the old-fashioned term 'bats in the belfry'. Old churches had a structure at the top called a belfry, which housed the bells. Bats are extremely sensitive to sound and would never inhabit a belfry of an active church where the bell was rung frequently. Occasionally, when a church was abandoned and many years passed without the bell being rung, bats would eventually come and inhabit the belfry.

“So, when somebody said that an individual had 'bats in the belfry' it meant that there was 'nothing going on upstairs' (as in that person's brain). To be BATSHIT CRAZY is to take this even a step further. A person who is batshit crazy is so nuts that not only is their belfry full of bats, but so many bats have been there for so long that the belfry is coated in batshit. Hence, the craziest of crazy people are BATSHIT CRAZY.”

Idiot Idioms offers another historic source for the term.

It relates to a guy from the late 19th century who tried to get attention for his previously successful company by spreading rumours that it actually bottled bat feces and sold it as face cream.

Its owner, Kip Billington, “devised a Barnumesque stunt in which, under the pseudonym of a fake public health organization—False Advertising of Cosmetics Initiative Against Lying (FACIAL)—he would reveal to the press that his skin cream contained large amounts of bat **bleep**, obtained dirt cheap from the underside of a bridge in Texas, and that for 20 years he’d been falsely advertising this product, concealing its main ingredient, and that his valued customers had indeed, for years, been liberally massaging bat poop into their skin pores.

“Then, at the opportune moment, at the height of scandal, when the very presses that printed the bold type faced letters of his name were burning with scorn, he would reveal the hoax, that he himself had fabricated FACIAL, had slandered himself and damaged his own public image for the express purpose of igniting the crucible of public opinion against the entire skin cream industry, thus purifying it of all lies and falsities of advertising. He did it in the name of Truth and Honesty.”

Turned out, he actually did put the substance in his product and people were aghast.

His “batshit crazy” hoax predictably backfired. “The public deemed Billington an idiot, a monster, and everyone agreed that he should ‘die in burning hell’ for what he did.”

I am still waiting for Trudeau to tell us this whole LavScam thing was all his twisted idea of a hoax gone wrong.

I am waiting for him to tell us that he only so politically slandered himself and his party to ignite the crucible of public opinion against all politicians.

That he did it to purify Canadian politics of all lies and falsities of advertising by leaders who purport to be the ethical breath of fresh air that in their hearts they know they are not.

At least that would make some sense. For he has done a great job of convincing all voters not to trust him or any sitting Liberal not named Puglaas or Philpott ever again.

Urban Dictionary or Idiot Idioms?

You decide which account of the term is most plausible.

After Wednesday’s caucus meeting, if things go as they now appear to be headed, there will be a picture of its remaining members beside the urban slang definition of both “Liberal-ludicrous” and “batshit crazy”.

Well done, prime minister, well done. At last you stand for something.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Follow the Money !


When the Canadian government entered into an agreement with BlackRock in 2017, what occurred was a partnership with the Canada Infrastructure Bank (CIB). In doing so, Canada became affiliated with the world construction cartel. Key players in SNC Lavalin, the newly-minted CIB,  and the Privy Council are developers of the social economy, a complex scheme to fleece Canada.

The CIB funding is going to support infrastructure overseas to back the construction cartel. This is a funding resource for SNC because they have been barred from bidding on World Bank projects. The CIB is wealth transfer diverting Canadian tax dollars and pension funds to third-world countries to build their infrastructure, create jobs, and stimulate their economy. Let’s have a look at the current CIB board members. We will see how they overlap through government, business, and foundations. 

Bruno Guilmette served as interim Chief Investment Officer of Canada Infrastructure Bank, where he established the organization’s initial investment policies and processes (1). Previously, he served on the Executive Committee and Board of the Global Infrastructure Investor Association (GIIA). The GIIA plans and delivers a program of global advocacy and stakeholder engagement that promotes global private investment in infrastructure(2)(3). Rapid income growth across developing countries as well as rapid urbanization is driving enormous demand for infrastructure investment that is vital to their country’s future economic growth. But many of these emerging economies are stuck on the same question: how do we pay for this?

Worldwide investment in infrastructure needs to average $3.3 trillion a year to support global economic growth aspirations and provide citizens with essential services.” (2)

Government budgets are being strained by public debt, but according to most estimates there is more than $1 trillion in private sector capital available from millions of individual citizens in the form of pension funds (4). Institutional investors and bank assets could also “partially support infrastructure projects”, with 87% of these funds originating from advanced economies (2). As is described in this article written by the GIIA, Canada’s Infrastructure Bank is setting up the guidelines for the procurement of money for these global infrastructure programs: (4)

Two countries that are succeeding in unlocking this dry powder (pension funds) are Australia and Canada. They have invested in a specialist central resource (Infrastructure Bank) to gather and share best practices for procuring bodies, thereby building a capability to identify the pipeline of infrastructure requirements and the tool kit of financial models to procure them.”

Therefore, Trudeau’s Infrastructure Bank, promoted by the Liberals as a tool for developing infrastructure projects within Canada, was an out-right lie to Canadians. Infrastructure development, jobs, and the economic growth that comes with it was never intended to service the needs of Canadians, but rather to benefit global construction companies and citizens of third world economies! Companies such as SNC-Lavalin were the only ones awarded contracts and half of these contracts were funding for work outside Canada (5).

And who better to help implement this “Global Infrastructure Bank” than Bruno Guilmette(6)? Guilmette not only served on the Global Infrastructure and Investment Association (GIIA) board, but also as the Senior Vice-President of Infrastructure at PSP Investments, Canada’s largest pension investment managers (7). Mr. Guilmette also served as the Senior Director of Investments & Infrastructure at the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec (6), the Quebec Pension Plan that is the largest shareholder of SNC-Lavalin (8). Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec even procured a contract with Canada Infrastructure Bank to build a rail system in Montreal and SNC-Lavalin received the funding: (9)(10)(11)

And it’s true that SNC-Lavalin’s largest shareholder is the Quebec public-service pension fund, whose pet project is a light-rail network, whose main construction contractor is SNC-Lavalin. And it’s true that the head of the pension fund pushed hard for the federal government to set up an Infrastructure Bank whose only investment to date… was in the light-rail network promoted by the pension fund that is SNC’s biggest investor and which, in turn, is the rail project’s biggest contractor.”

Bruno Guilmette also has other ties to SNC-Lavalin. He is the directoroBoralex Inc. (6)(14). Alain Rheaume who is on the board of directors of SNC-Lavalin is also board of directors for Boralex Inc. (15). Guilmette is on the board of Avi Alliance (6), which is a subsidiary of Hochtief (an international construction services provider). Hochtief has partnered with SNC-Lavalin on infrastructure contracts (16).

Billions of dollars of Canadian taxpayer money is being poured into SNC-Lavalin with much of that cash going overseas (5). The World Bank has listed SNC-Lavalin as an ineligible firm to receive funding for contracts due to allegations of fraud and corruption (5). This being the case, was the Infrastructure Bank set up to fund the corrupt construction cartels? If SNC is convicted, the federal government is still on the hook to pay out the contracts’ worth to SNC’s shareholders. That will not only damage the Canadian economy, but the Canadian taxpayer will also be responsible for the losses. A bigger question is, how much of the $35 billion of the $186 billion in contracts already pledged has SNC has been signed with the Infrastructure Bank? And if convicted, how much money are we going to be shelling out to SNC?

Blackrock, a US-based asset management company overseeing $5.1 trillion in investments (17), reported in February 2018 that it was raising $10 billion in private equity funds, and that it would seek a private commitment from sovereign wealth funds (e.g. pension funds) and other institutional investors, to set up a fund called “BlackRock Alternative Investments” (18)(19). Heading up this project was Andre Bourbonnais, who was Senior Managing Director of the CPP Investment Board and Global Head of Investment Partnerships (2010-2015). Before that he worked for Caisse de Depot et Placement du Quebec (2004-2010)(20). The current President of Canada Infrastructure Bank, Pierre Lavallee, worked for Andre Bourbonais in 2012 at CPP Investment Board as VP for Investment Partnerships (12). 

What exactly is the “BlackRock Alternative Investments” fund? The social economy is often referred to as the “alternative economy”, a global movement powered by corporations and their foundations that promote communism (21). This raises several questions: Is Canada’s Infrastructure Bank managed by BlackRock? Does BlackRock have controlling interest in this bank? Will this bank be used to fund the social economy? (17) The connections between these pension boards, corporations and the president and directors of the Canada Infrastructure Bank warrant public scrutiny. 

New evidence reveals that BlackRock’s role in the Canada Infrastructure Bank may have also included advising on key personnel including Pierre Lavallee, the current president of Canada Infrastructure Bank (22). Trudeau consulted BlackRock extensively for the $35 billion investment in the new bank which critics say will put the interests of investors ahead of Canadian Taxpayers (23). After all, BlackRock’s fiduciary responsibility is to its clients and not Canadian taxpayers, pension investors, or consumers. Moreover, the Paradise Papers include nine companies connected to the BlackRock Group. These are tax havens that contribute to income inequality, benefiting wealthy corporations at the expense of taxpayers (17).


Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


Trudeau’s expulsion of two former cabinet ministers is virtually unprecedented, records show

Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott are seemingly alone in history for sticking to their beliefs and getting punished for it

You don’t challenge the PMO, otherwise you pay the political price,” he warned. “Our system is not democratic. It’s Soviet style democracy.”


John Nunziata was an MP during Jean Chretien’s government, but held no cabinet positions before he was ejected from caucus on April 21, 1996. Nunziata was vocal in his criticism of the Chretien government and when the Liberals put forth their budget, Nunziata voted against it because it did not abolish the GST, a government policy he vehemently opposed and that the Liberals said they would abolish.

“I was embarrassing my caucus members because I stood up and said we have to keep our promise about the GST,” Nunziata said last week.

Nunziata said he sympathizes with Wilson-Raybould and Philpott.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ontario waking up. Spotted on the way to the Elmira Maple Syrup festival last weekend.


Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

What people are getting wrong about this entire silly affair

It is painful to be so out of step with many politicians and commentators with whom I normally agree, but I don’t think the unfolding Jody Wilson-Raybould controversy is being evaluated correctly. As I have written here before, Wilson-Raybould committed a number of acts and adopted a number of policies as minister of justice that advanced the interests of the native people, or at least some of the leaders among the native people, at the expense of the Canadian national interest. She incited suspicion about whether she was exercising her powers even-handedly. She had a duty to ensure that the decisions she took were objectively just and fair. I don’t believe she was blameless in these matters, and it would be surprising if that were not part of the motivation in shuffling her to another ministerial portfolio. I appear to be among the very few people in this country who has mentioned this aspect of the controversy, which indicates the extreme reluctance of anyone to touch native affairs policy. That is an aversion the political class and the media will have to overcome, as it is a vital and delicate field in desperate need of reform.

On the ostensible principal cause of the Wilson-Raybould controversy, the treatment of SNC-Lavalin, the government has badly mishandled the case tactically, but has a stronger moral and practical position than it generally gets credit for on three important aspects of it. First, the law forbidding Canadians, and especially Canadian business people, from doing such things as bribery in foreign countries where such unsavoury practices are a condition precedent to doing business at all, when the individuals are only doing so in the legitimate interest of the businesses involved and at no direct profit to themselves, is nonsense. Canada is a G7 country with a number of distinguished international companies and we cannot expect these corporations to compete with one hand tied behind their backs in much of the world. The determination of what constitutes an acceptable ethical climate for the conduct of business resides with the jurisdiction where the transactions take place. It is preposterous for, in this case, a Canadian company to be penalized for conduct in Libya that reflects the commercial customs of that country, even if the same actions in Canada would be illegal. Canada must stop masquerading as the self-elevated eagle scout of world commerce.

Second, the option to Canadian prosecutors to impose a fine rather than lay a criminal charge is legitimate and sensible and the media and opposition should stop referring to it as a sleazy, partisan escape hatch for the naughty corporate friends of the Liberal party. Prosecutions are destructive, costly and not infrequently unjust. If the senior officials of our Justice ministry felt they had a legitimate legal grievance against SNC-Lavalin and some of its executives, it is more likely that a fine would be a better response than inflicting serious damage on a corporation with 10,000 Canadian employees and many thousands of shareholders, suppliers and other stakeholders.

No one should imagine that there is any great morally cleansing aspect to a criminal prosecution in a case like this. Where a crime occurs in Canada and there are victims and a requirement for punishment and retribution for justice to be served, especially if any violence occurred, prosecutions must be pursued. But where the interests of a large number of innocent people are involved, as at SNC-Lavalin, and it is essentially an attempt to apply Canadian law to a foreign jurisdiction, a fine is much preferable to a prosecution, and even then can only be justified if there was an unnecessary recourse to distasteful business methods. This practice of the entire political opposition and media of leaping on their soapboxes and screaming for a criminal prosecution is barbaric.

Third, where the national interest or a fundamental point of justice is involved which individual prosecutors or the director of prosecutions could not reasonably be expected to grasp or weigh, it is perfectly in order for the prime minister or a senior person acting for him, such as the principal secretary (Gerald Butts), or clerk of the privy council (Michael Wernick), to review the file. In the SNC-Lavalin case, the question of whether the company would depart Canada, disemploying thousands of people, or would be declared ineligible to bid for engineering business in this country for a prolonged period, definitely engages the national interest. The prime minister, any prime minister, is responsible, above all else, for maintaining and advancing the national interest, which includes any enhancement of the collective welfare and security of the country within accepted legal and moral parameters. This sadistically obtuse, antediluvian claptrap that no one outside the Justice ministry can speak to a prosecutor is bunk, as was the prim righteousness affected by Wilson-Raybould in her recorded telephone-ambush of the clerk of the Privy Council, that she was uneasy about talking with him about the Lavalin case.

Given the importance of the subject, the prime minister should have summoned the minister and the director of prosecutions and whatever independent counsel he thought appropriate. (Wernick suggested “Bev McLachlin,” the former chief justice. I would be astounded if she would have much useful to bring to that subject, but the proposal indicated that Wernick, acting for the prime minister, wanted a balanced legal position, not an improper derailment of a just proceeding, as opponents suggested.) The prime minister should have gone carefully over the case with the minister and the director of prosecutions and specialist advisers and determined if the damage implicit in prosecuting criminally as opposed to a fine was justified, and instructed that the course he thought to be the best reconciliation of the requirements of justice with the overall national interest be followed. He should have been clear about it, kept all the backup material, and been ready to defend his decision in the same terms to the cabinet, the Liberal caucus, Parliament and the country.

There would have been no need for Butts or Wernick to resign. The argument that Trudeau had no right to review the case is spurious: he has an absolute obligation to discharge the duties of his office. (Leaving prosecutors completely free of discreet and principled review leads to the sort of terrorizing prosecutocracy that exists in the United States, where the perversion of the plea-bargain system encourages the extortion of false inculpatory testimony, and prosecutors win 99 per cent of their cases, 97 per cent without a trial because the position of an accused is so hopeless, compared to about a 65 per cent conviction rate in this country.)

In all of the circumstances, the prime minister and his colleagues were justified in throwing Wilson-Raybould out of the Liberal caucus, bag and baggage. Macdonald, Laurier, King, Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney dispatched more talented members of their cabinets justifiably, and for lesser provocations (though not always from the caucus as well). If Jane Philpott resigned as a minister out of solidarity, and her conduct was otherwise unexceptionable, it seems to me that giving her the high-jump from the caucus too was excessive, but there are likely material aspects in her conduct unknown to me.

We are now in a time when the two countries closest to Canada are undergoing great political perplexity. In Britain, government is reduced to its greatest, most abject and inexcusable general failure since the American Revolution. The Mother of Parliaments was rightly described in screaming headlines by my former Fleet Street colleagues last week as the “House of Fools,” and is presided over by a speaker who is an insolent oaf (John Bercow). The United States is just getting to the serious examination of the unprecedented attempt by senior members of the national intelligence apparatus and federal police to influence the outcome of a presidential election in the most egregious breach of the fundamental provisions of the U.S. Constitution since the insurrection that led directly to the Civil War. As usual in Canada, at scandals and official outrages, we are a comparative flop. On balance, that is a good thing and should be a source of happiness.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since you quoted most of his article, why not identify the author?


Conrad Black: What people are getting wrong about this entire silly affair


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, deicer said:

Same as last time.  Read the words without bias.

It is always wise, to always consider the source, the context and not just the words.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Marshall said:

It is always wise, to always consider the source, the context and not just the words.

True but sometime you would be surprised who said the words and it may actually change your opinion.  Source bias is a real thing.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, boestar said:

True but sometime you would be surprised who said the words and it may actually change your opinion.  Source bias is a real thing.


That must be true, every time deicer posts something I ignore it.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Warren Kinsela      ( Former Liberal strategist and Liberal candidate )


I teach crisis communications to lawyers-to-be at the University of Calgary’s Faculty of Law, my alma mater.

My students, as always, are terrific. And, for the whole term, we’ve been focussing on just one topic: LavScam.

It makes sense. LavScam is the perfect fusion of a communications crisis and the law. It has all the requisite elements. Possible obstruction of justice, possible breach of trust – and, indisputably, a raging dumpster fire of a comms crisis.

In every class, we’ve analyzed the latest LavScam controversies. We’ve watched, and re-watched, Justin Trudeau’s now-infamous press conference. “Why didn’t he apologize?” asked several of my students, bewildered. (Good question.)

We analyzed Jody Wilson-Raybould’s evidence as she testified at the clown show that masquerades as a Justice Committee. “She should be Prime Minister,” several of my students said of her, with something approaching reverence. (Agreed.)

We developed communication strategies, early on, to extricate the Liberal Party from the ethical quagmire that – pollsters say – is rendering them a one-term government.

Those strategies, with minor variations, all involved sincere and public apologies to Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott; an admission that SNC-Lavalin is not, and never was, entitled to a Deferred Prosecution Agreement (DPA); a dismissal of every staff person who was attempting to pervert the course of justice; and – as Jean Chretien did in the sponsorship scandal – calling in the RCMP to investigate.

Like I say: I have smart students.

Now, Professor Kinsella is writing this before the final class of the term, which was on Friday. At that one, we will almost certainly discuss the big news of the week – which, as the civilized world knows, was Justin Trudeau’s corrupt, cowardly, craven decision to expel Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus. Because, you know, they objected when Trudeau and his senior staff tried to interfere in a criminal case to help out a donor.

Still in Trudeau’s caucus, however, is Kent Hehr – the Calgary Liberal MP who was found guilty of sexually harassing women. I don’t know if one of my students will raise that unequal application of justice, but I wouldn’t be surprised. It’s an interesting legal distinction, after all: two women who gave up everything to uphold the Rule of Law, and who were defamed, demeaned and destroyed for their efforts.

And, a man who sexually harassed two other women, kept in the family. Kept as a Liberal candidate.

“Not the actions of a feminist,” one of my students might say. And they’d be right, of course.

Also newsworthy, at that final class of Law 599: Gerald Butts’ saturnalian decision to submit text messages and emails and notes to the aforementioned clown show.

A January conversation between Trudeau and Wilson-Raybould, provided by Butts as a verbatim transcript, stood out.

Wilson-Raybould: “I love being Minister of Justice and Attorney General. I’m not going to lie. Indigenous Services is not my dream job. I’m not going to lie about that.”

Trudeau: “I know it is not your dream job, but it is core to this government, to maintain a legacy. And, to be crass about it, our political legacy.”

Wilson-Raybould: “I feel I’m being shifted out of Justice for other reasons.”

Trudeau: “We would not be doing this if it weren’t for Scott [Brison]’s decision.”

Wilson-Raybould: “I don’t agree. This is not how we change peoples lives.”

Trudeau: “After an election, everything is fresh again.”

Now, my students, who are exceptionally bright, will likely know that Gerald Butts and Justin Trudeau made three critical errors in submitting that transcript.

One, it’s a transcript. Unless Gerald Butts has enhanced shorthand skills no one knew about, it is highly likely that someone taped that conversation. Which, as any sharp-eyed law student will know, is the very pretext Trudeau used to expel Wilson-Raybould from the Liberal caucus: a secret taping.

Two, Wilson-Raybould was not aware Butts was listening in. That’s not breaking a law, per se, but it’s certainly not ethical sunny ways, either.

Thirdly – and most ominously, because my students all know who Marie Heinen is – Gerald Butts submitted many notes. When, in the pre-trial manoeuvrings in the trial Heinen’s client, Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, PMO and PCO solemnly swore that those sorts of notes simply don’t exist. Uh-oh.

If Messrs. Trudeau and Butts don’t think Canada’s best criminal lawyer didn’t spot that error, they’re dumber than dirt found at an SNC-Lavalin job site. She did. And she will be cross-examining them about it starting in August, mere weeks before the election is scheduled to kick off.

There’s a lot more of that sort of thing, but you get the point. In the final minutes of my final lecture, I therefore intend to tell my amazing students this: “In your future legal practice, remember what Justin Trudeau’s party did in LavScam in the year 2019,” I’ll say. “And, if you want to win, always just do this:

“The opposite.”


Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

To: All Ministers of Parliament

The disgusted voices of Canadian citizens of all political stripes are publicly sounding the alarm regarding the reckless political decisions and destructive actions of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party of Canada. Since all Ministers of Parliament have been elected to represent and serve Canadian citizens, the call for accountability is sounded and Canadian citizens unequivocally demand answers to the following questions:

• Why are the Liberal Members of Parliament allowing Justin Trudeau to send millions of dollars to foreign countries at the expense of Canada’s needs?

• Why are the Liberal Members of Parliament allowing Justin Trudeau to carelessly accumulate vast amounts of national debt at the expense of Canada’s future generations?

• Why are the Liberal Members of Parliament allowing Justin Trudeau to wreak havoc at our borders by admitting mass immigration of illegal migrants (such as Haitians) who are not from war-torn countries at the expense of legal immigration applicants?

• Why are the Liberal Members of Parliament allowing Justin Trudeau to completely disregard the needs of the more fragile elements of Canadian society such as our veterans, seniors, and disabled? While refugees are given free products and services, why must Canadian seniors pay to receive eyeglasses, dental care, and prescriptions? Why are Canadian seniors taxed on their pension incomes?

• Why are the Liberal Members of Parliament allowing Justin Trudeau to neglect and avoid legally recognizing all activist groups which violently seek to suppress and eliminate freedom of speech as “terrorists”?
• Why are the Liberal Members of Parliament allowing Justin Trudeau to send Canadian money to countries around the world, but to neglect Canadians who are in dire need. Forest fires in Alberta? Native Canadians? Veterans?. Low income Canadians? Canadians with disabilities? Seniors? The list is a long one and growing. 

• Why did the Liberal Members of Parliament allow Justin Trudeau to issue a payment of $10.5 million dollars to a convicted terrorist without an official Supreme Court ruling?

• Why did the Liberal Members of Parliament allow the Liberal Party of Canada to pass Motion-103 (M-103) which only explicitly records one religion by name (Islam) at the expense of all the other recognized religious groups in Canada in its pathetic attempt to curtail “Islamophobia”?

• Why do the Liberal Members of Parliament continue to allow Justin Trudeau to constantly renege on the fulfillment of vital economic agendas and sensitive social issues which were blatantly promised to all Canadians and First Nations peoples during his election campaign?
If these are the types of questions that need to be asked at this moment, then Canada is truly in a sad state of affairs. Members of Parliament are clearly not working for the benefit of Canada. It is apparent that all government strategies and decisions are not geared to a “Canada-first” mentality. Liberal Members of Parliament should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for allowing the great nation of Canada to embark on the destructive path of socialistic elitist globalism.

Does any other Liberal Member of Parliament possess the loyal determination to publicly stand against the globalist agenda of Justin Trudeau? 
Will any Liberal Member of Parliament fervently seek to honestly fulfill their responsibilities towards Canadian citizens? 
Will any Liberal Member of Parliament demonstrate the courage to answer all of the questions posted above?

Sadly, it appears that hard-working, tax-paying, country-loving Canadians do not have a champion in the political arena. Therefore, Canada is quickly progressing towards moral and financial bankruptcy, and Canadians hold all the Liberal Members of Parliament responsible for this collapse. All Canadians are appalled and disgusted by the uncaring passivity displayed by the Liberal Members of Parliament in all facets of government.

Beware, if the Liberal Members of Parliament choose to continue to facilitate the implementation of Justin Trudeau’s globalist agenda and do not act immediately to stop the bleeding of national decay, all true Canadians will eventually band together and use any means at our disposal to prevent the destruction of the foundations of our great nation.

Just remember that you may not be re-elected and thus all people that rely on you - your staff and family for example - will also be out of an income. Look what happened in Ontario with the Wynne Government. Reduced to non party status!
For all Liberal Members of Parliament, you can stop the insanity by crossing the floor and joining another party, until there is no longer a Liberal government and then all members can vote on what the Prime Minister is doing to our Canada!

A very concerned Canadian citizen

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all Liberal Members of Parliament, you can stop the insanity by crossing the floor and joining another party, until there is no longer a Liberal government and then all members can vote on what the Prime Minister is doing to our Canada!

Please do not encourage these back bench MP,s to do anything of the sort. They need to be shown the door, complicit in the whole team Trudeau debacle. The last thing that I would want to see is this bunch of yes men/women be rewarded with an indexed federal pension. Watching “Question Period” in the hoc makes me ill, knowing theses buffoons have a hand in running the country.

  • Like 1

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

To my friends and relatives that say "I never saw this coming:, I reply "For 40 years I have called the Liberals 'The Lieberals'.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


If I give you $1 billion and you stand on a street corner handing out $1 per second, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, you would still not have handed out $1 billion after 31 years! 

Now read on. This is too true to be funny. 

The next time you hear a politician use the word 'billion' in a casual manner, think about whether you want the 'politicians' spending YOUR tax money. 

A billion is a difficult number to comprehend, but one advertising agency did a good job of putting that figure into some perspective in one of its releases. 

1. A billion seconds ago, it was 1959. 

2. A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive. 

3. A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age. 

4. A billion days ago, no-one walked on the earth on two feet. 

5. A billion Dollars ago was only 13 hours and 12 minutes, at the rate our present government is spending it. 

We are charged: 

Income Tax

Stamp Duty 

Tobacco Tax 

Corporate Income Tax 

Unemployment Tax 

Fishing License Tax 

Petrol/Diesel Tax 

Inheritance Tax (tax on top of tax) 

Alcohol Tax 


Property Tax 

Purchase Property Tax 

Tax on Title Searches 

Tax on Building Inspections 

Taxes on various food items 

Taxes on Dining out 

Tax on all utilities – Phone, hydro, water, waste disposal 

Service charge taxes 

Social Security Tax 

Vehicle License / Registration Tax 

Vehicle Sales Tax 

Workers Compensation Tax 

And now ..... Carbon Dioxide Tax !!! 

And the list probably goes ON and ON and ON


Not one of these taxes existed 60 years ago, and our nation was one of the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt. 

We had the largest middle class in the world. 

A criminal’s life was uncomfortable. 

What on earth happened?


Edited by Jaydee

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yet the corrosive forces at play go back far longer than the current scandal that has rocked this Government over its term in office. Our Canada under this Prime Minister is undeniably poorer, less prosperous , less secure, less influential. Faced with increasingly challenging, complex and volatile times, reputationally we are losing our privileged position in the world.

There is a clear need for focus and discipline regarding economy, foreign relations, national security and the environment. Consumed with the inner machinations of political mismanagement, ill-delivered ‘priorities’ of cannabis legalization, over-lorded carbon tax, sanctimonious scolding of our own population, this government irreparably harms our esteemed pedigree.

There is a clear need for focus and discipline regarding economy, foreign relations, national security and the environment. Consumed with the inner machinations of political mismanagement, ill-delivered ‘priorities’ of cannabis legalization, over-lorded carbon tax, sanctimonious scolding of our own population, this government irreparably harms our esteemed pedigree.

Instead? Massive deficits electoral reform un-promised, trade negotiations bungled, immigration policy at sea, pipeline projects cancelled and nationalized, foreign investment drying up, sexual interference queried, humiliating foreign visits ridiculed, vacations in conflict of interest and fundraising likewise, payouts to terrorists voluntary, too many missteps and worse to count.

Now the present scandal spilling into penal arguably spurious prosecution of a respected 35-year RCN veteran, the politicization of the “objective” neutral public service through Wernick clearly confounded as to his role, interference with selection of the judiciary, neglect of military veterans, escalation of taxes on working people, shoddy roll-out of marijuana ironically increasing black market penetration, declining productivity and competitiveness; in effect a general malaise, a country adrift.

Sunny ways, were they ever here, are gone, having been predicated on ‘propism’: a government committed to the advancement of feminism, of indigenousness, of transparency. Yet in the face of Ministers attempting to act in furtherance of those compelling and lofty goals, he of ‘Sunny Ways’ has opted for backroom partisanship that undermines that vision.

We as Canadians deserve much Better Ways.


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.

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