Jump to content

Justin Trudeau

Recommended Posts

Well….that was quick….


Trudeau, emerging from a virtual summit with his G7 counterparts, said Canada would keep special forces operatives and aircrews at the airport in Kabul past the end of the month. The leaders met to discuss the crisis and the re-emergence of the Taliban as the country’s rulers.

And as of 10 am Aug 26,Toronto time…


Canada’s evacuation flights of Canadian nationals and Afghan refugees at the Kabul airport has ended and the majority of Canadian special forces left about eight hours ago, acting Chief of the Defence Staff General Wayne Eyre said Thursday. “Our evacuation efforts have ceased and the majority of personnel have now departed Hamid Karzai International Airport,” he told a news briefing. “A small contingent remains on the ground to support and coordinate our air bridge for the retrograde of allied sources while conditions permit.”

Canada’s back??? The turd is now saying he will ask the taliban to let people leave the country….great strategy!

What an embarrassment to the world and a betrayal to the Afghans that helped us through the years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau's Afghanistan failures show how little Canada now stands for 

If you ever need Canada's help, you’d better hope it’s at a politically expedient time for the ruling Liberals

It’s done. The Canadian mission to extract interpreters, journalists, activists, support staff, refugees, and other Afghans who’ve risked their lives to help us over the years is over before it barely began. While more than 2,700 people were flown out of Afghanistan on Canadian flights, thousands of others remain under the control of one of the world’s most oppressive and brutal regimes.

The sentiment expressed over and over again to media from military and government sources: it didn’t have to be this way. We could’ve done more; been better. If only our highest levels of government, including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, cared a little bit more.

Trudeau will say he cares. He’ll talk about being good global citizens, the rights of women and LGBTQ communities, and how we’ve resettled close to 60,000 Syrian refugees since 2016– although he’ll conveniently forget to mention Germany, Sweden, Austria, Turkey, Lebanon, and others accepted many more. When the chance finally arrived to prove his moral grandstanding is more than a cynical act, to finally prove all the skeptics wrong, where was our head of state? MIA on the campaign trail.


In Trudeauland, doing the right thing is nice, but only if it doesn’t get in the way of pursuing more power. It’d be downright dandy to help — at bare minimum — those Afghans who helped us, but too bad the Taliban couldn’t wait to take Kabul at a more favourable time for the Liberals.

Instead, while other world leaders focused their attention on Afghanistan, Canada’s leaders hit the campaign trail. While U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson recalled his parliament to address the crisis, Trudeau asked Governor General Mary Simon to dissolve ours.

While there were clearly issues outside our government’s control in Afghanistan, the most frequently cited hurdle was Canada’s signature toxic combo of incompetent bureaucracy, endless red tape, and lack of preparedness for anything but the most ideal circumstances.

As other countries flew out packed-to-the-brim flights, Canada wondered whether we should limit our number of passengers to the number of seatbelts. There were problems with visas and other documentation that ranged from there being none to them being hopelessly confusing and overburdensome. There were mixed messages– when there were messages from Ottawa at all. Oh and we neglected to train the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to refuel their expensive planes mid-air, which is one of the main reasons to have said expensive planes.

It sure would’ve been nice to have a strong leader crack the whip, get warring or non communicative bureaucratic factions in order, and oversee a detailed plan with clear messaging. We lacked this before and after Kabul fell, despite the writing being on the wall for weeks, if not months.

It’s difficult to believe this wasn’t because our prime minister, his cabinet ministers, every other MP, and their staff weren’t hurriedly prepping and then campaigning for a snap election. Elections are exhausting at the best of times; during an acute crisis they can be dangerous and, in this case, deadly distractions.

Now, humanitarian organizations like Amnesty International are begging Canada to work with our allies to extend the evacuation deadline. “Every effort must now be made to safely evacuate Afghans who fear revenge attacks by the Taliban and have to leave the country. To fail them would be an unforgivable betrayal,” wrote Agnès Callamard, NGO’s secretary general, in a statement emailed to press Thursday morning.

That very same day, Trudeau wasn’t huddled in a war room or on the phone with other G7 leaders, he was in Quebec City announcing a guaranteed income supplement for seniors. Meanwhile, any pretense of a new and improved Taliban is finished as women are told to stay home, reports of door-to-door searches continue, and the number of deaths — often under grisly circumstances — rises.

Not for one single day has Trudeau been able to say he’s given the crisis his full attention. Undoubtedly some will claim he’s focused on a “pivotal” time for Canada, but the Afghan crisis itself represents a pivotal time for Canada. We’ve had a front row seat to the blowback western nations face when their operations in foreign countries go wrong, leaving behind an angry, bitter, and even vengeful populace. How we treat Afghans now will have future consequences.

Canada is a nation that once stood for doing the right thing. We didn’t always get it right, but at least we usually tried. Now, under Trudeau’s leadership, we’re simply a country obsessed with saying the right things. Worse, we make promises we can’t keep and, if you ever need our help, you’d better hope it’s at a politically expedient time for the ruling Liberals. Otherwise, don’t expect Canada to show up.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 hours ago, Jaydee said:

Trudeau’s getting a great reception around the country. The guy in this video is an idiot to the nth degree.

Caution. Language




Both sides are guilty this election. In my entire life, I have never seen Canada this divided….at least never pre-Trudeau.


“ This morning a video of a man cornering me at a table in a restaurant last night while I was having dinner has been circulating on social media. 

I have made it a policy not to comment on incidents like this so as not to give these individuals a platform. However, this video is unfortunately already public. So, here are my thoughts.

Last night, after protestors at a Justin Trudeau event crossed a significant line into threats of violence, Global News's Mercedes Stephenson tweeted, "More and more protesters have been appearing at Liberal campaign events, some getting very aggressive. Tonight the Liberal campaign has cancelled an event over security concerns. This is super rare in Canadian politics."

I wish she was right. But, sadly, this is not “super rare.” It’s unfortunately an all too frequent occurrence for me and many of my colleagues, particularly women, of all political stripe. And this increase in violent language, threats, and abuse certainly isn't confined to politics. 

And after some recent experiences, I know it's getting worse. So in the spirit of hoping this will spur some sort of action, I'll share these with you.

In the last two weeks alone, I have had two men spot me on the street, jump out of a car with cameras, and chase after me down the street demanding I respond to conspiracy theories. And last night, while having dinner with my husband, I was accosted by a large man who aggressively  approached us and cornered us at our table to do the same thing. For these individuals in these moments, I feel like they don't see me as a human. In those moments, I also fear.

This is on top of the barrage of online hate and defamation that is directed at me on a daily basis.

In the last two weeks I have also received a death threat from someone who called my office in escalating states of verbal abuse over the course of days. 

This meant I can't advertise the location of my campaign office. I can't attend public events where my attendance has been advertised. I've had to enhance security measures. I'm on edge and feel fear when I'm getting in and out of my car, and out in public in general. 

I know myself well enough that they'll never take my spirit, my fight, or my ability to fight for my community in the area of politics, and the support I receive in the community is a daily buoy to my spirits. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a cost. A line has to be drawn. 

Perhaps that line is drawn in legislation that enhances the ability to prosecute for criminal harassment, coupled with a legal framework to prevent people from controlling massive numbers of anonymous or fake online accounts. Or, maybe it's starting with a general acknowledgement that nearly two years of social isolation due to lockdown measures, job losses and a national mental health crisis in some instances may have lessened capacity for humanity and critical thought.

No matter what, we need to address this.

Vigorous political discourse is vital. But a line needs to be drawn somewhere. Because at the end of the day I would like Mercedes to be right; cancelling events due to security should be "super rare", in fact it should never happen at all.”


Edited by Jaydee
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trudeau Doesn’t Get To Divide The Country And Then Pretend He’s The Victim

We must not allow Trudeau to get away with pretending he’s a passive observer or victim of the rising level of anger in Canada. He has divided the nation for his own selfish political gain, and that has led Canada to this moment.

Justin Trudeau started the election campaign by trying to divide Canadians on the issue of vaccinations and vaccine passports.

Earlier in the year, Trudeau had said Canada isn’t a country that mandates vaccinations.

But when the campaign started, he changed his tune, pushing vaccine passports and mandatory vaccinations.

He did this to try and win more votes, showing a complete lack of character and decency as he politicized vaccines and used the rights and freedoms of Canadians as part of his cynical political games.

Trudeau then gave an angry and divisive speech where he demonized unvaccinated Canadians – a straight up attempt to divide the country, turn a group of Canadians into a targeted group, and use that targeted group as an ‘excuse’ to deflect anger and hatred towards a ‘politically-convenient’ target.

“If you don’t want to get vaccinated, that’s your choice. But don’t think you can get on a plane or a train beside vaccinated people and put them at risk!”


That’s the most obvious fear-mongering we’ve seen in a very long time in Canadian politics, and it is disgusting.

Trudeau then attacked the Conservatives on abortion – repeating the same old lie they’ve been using for years.

Then, Trudeau claimed – again falsely – that the Conservatives would privatize healthcare.

As I noted, Trudeau’s entire campaign is based on lies:

“Having lied constantly in office, Trudeau is now reduced to doubling and tripling-down on lies to try and stay in office.

As we can see, the more desperate he and the Liberals get, the more obvious the lies become.

Not only do they show contempt for Canadians with the endless deception, but they are tacitly admitting their own failure as a government.

If you have a strong record, and if people are happy with your performance, you don’t need to lie about your opponents.

It’s only when a leader is weak, and when people are waking up to their tricks that lies run rampant.”

Also, Trudeau tried blaming Harper for Canada’s humiliating failure to protect those who stood with us in Afghanistan:

“Question by @glen_mcgregor: What will you do to help Canadian citizens left behind in Kabul?

Trudeau: Stephen Harper dislikes Syrians”


Further, in his latest ad, Trudeau attacks the Conservatives for not having all their candidates vaccinated, despite having had to recently admit that the Liberals also have unvaccinated candidates:

“On Friday, @JustinTrudeau had to admit that not all of his candidates have had both shots and waited two weeks – that means they are unvaccinated. He also held an event that violated Ontario’s COVID restrictions.

Now he has an ad like this?

COVID is only a wedge for him.”


And that brings us to the protests that have been increasingly prevalent at Trudeau events.

A divisive leader, a divided nation

As we’ve seen above, Justin Trudeau is doing everything possible to divide Canadians. When a leader with a large national platform decides to take that path, the result is that the nation ends up being bitterly divided.

Trudeau wanted some Canadians to fear and hate other Canadians, because he saw that as being in his political interest.

Yet now, as that anger manifests itself, he’s acting as if he is somehow shocked.

And as he always does, the consequences of his own actions always somehow end up being a ‘chance for reflection’ for ‘all of us’:

“Reporter: “Have you played a role in inflaming some of the rhetoric that has now enveloped this campaign?”

Trudeau: “Perhaps the desire to bring Canadians together is at odds with the desire and responsibility we have to keep Canadians safe.””


We all need to reflect on whether or not we do want to go down that path of anger, of division, of intolerance … this is something that Canadians, all of us, need to reflect on, because it’s not who we are as a country””


The desire to bring Canadians together”?


Does this guy really expect people to believe this?

It’s like with the blackface scandal.

Somehow, Trudeau wearing blackface was a ‘learning opportunity’ for ‘all Canadians.’

Online, many Canadians expressed their feelings on Trudeau’s hypocrisy and refusal to take responsibility for the division he’s created, along with ripping the establishment media for going along with Trudeau’s victim-narrative:

“Some journalists’ tweets yesterday made it sound like they were facing off against throngs of Taliban militants instead of a few dozen angry Canadian moms yelling nasty things at a politician. Get a grip boys and girls.”


Pathetic media tried to trap o toole to say it was ok to heckle trudeau, media campaigning for trudeau , spinning it as it not ok to protest trudeau, something you would expect from the Chinese or Russian media, canadians have a right to protest and heckle trudeau, toddler pm”


“Once again Trudeau blames Canadians and says we must reflect. It is time you reflected Trudeau not us. We have had enough.”


“He has fuelled a lot of the anger and division. This is a direct result of that. Once we get some competent leadership people won’t be living in a pressure cooker anymore and people will return to our Canadian way of life. We just have to get past him.”


“This is Trudeau’s Canada. He manifested this. And now he’s trying to use it to score points.

He and his hateful band of miscreants have spent six years demonizing, insulting, disrespecting and strategically dividing Canadians.

What did they expect would be the outcome?”


“Trudeau thinks the protests he’s been experiencing are dangerous?

What does he think the Canadians, he left stranded in Kabul are feeling?

Man up buddy!”


Media narrative defending Trudeau

Much of the media is now pushing the Trudeau-victim narrative, acting as if the anger is ‘unprecedented’ and ‘not like we’ve seen in Canada.’

And yet, they are apparently ignoring the fact that – just a week ago – Justin Trudeau himself was calling on Canadians to be INFURIATED at his opponents:

“Just a week ago, Trudeau wanted Canadians to be infuriated. What changed bro?”


“Trudeau wanted Canadians to be INFURIATED when it served his interests. Now, when it turns out Canadians are infuriated in opposition to him, it’s a ‘moment of reflection’ for the country. Pathetic.”


This is why Canadians are so angry at Trudeau.

The sanctimony.

The hypocrisy.

The deception.

The victim-narrative that blames others for the consequences of his actions.

This is also why we need independent media, because people like me will continue to hold Trudeau accountable and point out his lies, instead of going along with the establishment press narrative that gives Trudeau a free pass for the destructive and divisive political environment he has created.

Spencer Fernando


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let’s see…..first we had the Kokanee grope, elbowgate, the sexual assaults in the military, a couple of liberal MPs being fired for assault, and now going into the final stages of the election, more accusations of an mp sexually assaulting staffers, which Trudeau covers up. People including a prominent liberal pundit are getting testy!


And we have been provided with yet another goddamned example of that, just this week, mid-election. When we learned that a member of his Liberal caucus has been the subject of multiple complaints of sexual misconduct and worse. One of the complainants actually attempted suicide.

Trudeau’s response? He says he believes the MP. And we simply don’t know if he or his PMO consulted with the RCMP. We need to know that. We deserve to know that.

So, it’s relevant that, early Wednesday, Trudeau’s former attorney general — Canada’s lawyer, in effect — wrote this online about the latest allegations: “Anyone who has a responsibility to address (the Liberal sexual misconduct allegations) and does not is not fit to lead. Anyone who stands by and does nothing is complicit. Anyone who is surprised has not been paying attention.”

Well said, JWR.

Is it sexual assault? Is it sexual harassment? Those are, and will remain, important questions.

But here’s another one: After all that we now know, why the hell would anyone vote for this creep?

— Warren Kinsella is the founder of the Daisy Group, a firm that has worked with multiple women who have experienced sexual harassment in Trudeau’s Liberal Party 


For a former Liberal strategist to use language like that to describe the liberal leader and current pm(why the hell would anyone vote for this creep?) is nothing short of astonishing!!!

I guess Warren won’t be getting any Christmas cards from Justy.


  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/4/2021 at 7:43 AM, Jaydee said:


I find it interesting that conservatives are quick to remind everyone about Trudeau paying $10.5 million to Omar Khadr, which was mainly because of Harper's mess ups, yet they fail to acknowledge Harper's payout of $11.5 million and written apology to Maher Arar.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/8/2021 at 9:43 AM, deicer said:

I find it interesting that conservatives are quick to remind everyone about Trudeau paying $10.5 million to Omar Khadr, which was mainly because of Harper's mess ups, yet they fail to acknowledge Harper's payout of $11.5 million and written apology to Maher Arar.



Wasn't Arar an an innocent man, falsely asccused versus Khadr who was killing American soldiers in the cause of Islamic extremism. Why would anybody think they were comparable. Intentional misleading perhaps?

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From Jody Wilson’s book…published in the Globe.


“ Jody Wilson-Raybould most recently served as the independent Member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville. The following is excerpted from her latest book, ‘Indian’ in the Cabinet: Speaking Truth to Power, which will be published Tuesday:

The sun was flooding through the third-floor windows of the Signature private plane terminal at Vancouver International Airport as I sat waiting for the Prime Minister to arrive. The terminal is distant and isolated, far from the bustling main terminal and the eyes of the public and the media. My husband, Tim, had dropped me off and then parked to wait for me among the cars of the Prime Minister’s motorcade. The PM was late. Building in me was a creeping realization that this was the beginning of the end. It was here. The time had come.

It had been three days since Robert Fife’s front-page story in The Globe and Mail set off a series of ongoing convulsions over the Liberal government’s attempts to “pressure” me on the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. As soon as the story broke, the Prime Minister said that “the allegations in The Globe story this morning are false. Neither the current nor the previous attorney-general was ever directed by me or by anyone in my office to take a decision in this matter.” The government’s response over the next 72 hours had been a case study in hubris – at once both surprised that they had been caught and offended that anyone could think they would ever do anything wrong.

In the Indigenous political world I had come from, we always talked about how government practice, for generations, was to deny, delay, and distract when it came to Indigenous issues. I had heard that phrase – deny, delay, and distract – since I was a kid. The past three years had shown me that governments use that strategy far beyond their dealings with Indigenous peoples. Sometimes all Canadians are treated contemptuously. On SNC-Lavalin, few were buying it. And they were right to be skeptical. I wished it had not come to this.

I felt a familiar conflict inside of me that had been there my whole life: A deep desire to believe in people. To expect the best out of them. To want them to do the right thing. Almost a protective desire to see them do right. And yet simultaneously knowing that sometimes this does not happen. That when people act a certain way time and again, they are likely to repeat it, whatever my hopes and wishes may be. As I sat there in that room – a big room, all by myself – waiting for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to arrive, I asked myself why I felt that I had to try to help him out of this mess, to protect him. Especially when his government had been digging a deeper and deeper hole by the hour by not coming clean on how I was pushed to take over the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin to enable them to enter into a deferred prosecution agreement, or DPA. Especially when his office had been telling their MPs to repeat lines they knew were not accurate.

I was anxious as I sat there. I could feel my lingering hope that I would be proven wrong and that everything was not as terrible as it seemed. I wished that the government would just admit their wrongdoing and deal with it openly and transparently. I knew the only way to deal with it was to tell the truth. Full transparency. It was as clear to me as sunlight. The Prime Minister had to simply acknowledge that the attempts to apply pressure were not proper and take concrete steps to address the wrong actions. Deep down I think I knew better than to expect him to own up. However, at that moment, I still wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt. I saw the Canadian Armed Forces Challenger land and pull up to the private terminal. 
As the Prime Minister walked up the stairs, I could hear him talking to someone moments before he entered the room. He greeted me in his typically physical and warm way, with a hug and expressions of appreciation. “I so want you to keep being part of this government,” he said. As always, from the first time I met him in Whitehorse in 2013, he reflected on the good we can do for the country. This is so Justin Trudeau. Taking control and setting the tone. Trying to remind everyone in the room – in this case me – who is in charge. “I don’t think that you leaked the story [to the Globe],” he said. Unless I told him otherwise, he added. A power play. He was trying to push the ball into my court. Looking back, I do not think the Prime Minister had a clue what I was going to say in this meeting. 

As it turned out, this was the first of three private meetings with the PM over the next 36 hours, before I eventually resigned from his Cabinet. That resignation – and everything that led to it – would lead to him tossing me out of the Liberal caucus and then removing me as the confirmed Liberal candidate for Vancouver Granville in the 2019 general election. The Prime Minister and I had not communicated since the Globe story broke – not even by phone – but the world had exploded around me. The public and media barrage was unlike anything I had ever experienced or could ever have anticipated. And it was a similar firestorm for the Prime Minister and his office. Intrusive, relentless, and everywhere.

 I know the Prime Minister had always considered me a bit of a challenge – not political enough, too independent-minded, and ultimately not part of the inner Liberal crowd. I think I was foreign and incomprehensible to him. After all, I was from the other side of the tracks. I was an Indigenous girl from a small fishing village – Cape Mudge, on the southern tip of Quadra Island just off Vancouver Island. I am Kwakwaka’wakw. The PM did not grow up in my neighbourhoods, with the kids I grew up with. None of his family went to residential schools. My childhood memories are closer to Comox and Cape Mudge than Rockcliffe. My political point of reference was the Big House, not the House of Commons. To be fair, he did not choose how and where he grew up or who his parents were. But Liberals? Political parties? Not my world. 

With the ice cracked but not broken, I started softly, reminding the Prime Minister where I had always stood. “I got into politics because there are issues that I am seriously committed to helping resolve.” I recalled for him one of our first conversations when he was recruiting me for the party. We were in Whitehorse, and we had talked about our visions of the country and how we seemed to have similar views. I got involved with the Liberal Party largely because I believed we shared those views, and because I thought he would be a good prime minister and create a good team. I had believed all that …I’d said to him five and a half years earlier. As I repeated it in that big airport room, I found myself wondering exactly when I first realized I had been wrong. 

I got to the heart of the matter. “Since you brought it up, I did not leak the story, and it is absurd and offensive you would suggest that.” I wondered if he knew that I had warned Gerry Butts, his principal secretary, that I had been cornered by Robert Fife after Cabinet on February 5 as I came out of the elevator on the ground floor of West Block. Mr. Fife’s questions had been so detailed they indicated something explosive was coming. I rhetorically asked the PM about the leak: “Why would I ever do that?” There was so much I had come to Ottawa to accomplish. For Indigenous peoples and all Canadians. I had traded my life as I knew it to enter federal politics, just as I knew 337 other people had.

Taking myself down, which in any scenario was the most likely outcome of the story leaking, did not advance those causes. Absurd. Like so much else that was to follow. There is no question in my mind that the Prime Minister knew there were attempts to pressure me to avoid a criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, and while those attempts failed, thankfully, they were wrong and he knew it. Instead of simply addressing the issue publicly and accurately, the government was sending out talking heads – the new attorney-general, David Lametti; Marco Mendicino; Arif Virani – to make comments that evidence has now shown were not accurate or right. I told him that he should be telling Canadians the truth. The Prime Minister seemed to be listening intently. 

“I never directed,” he said, referring to interfering in my role as the attorney-general in relation to the SNC-Lavalin prosecution. His public lines started coming, which were designed to deny responsibility and culpability. There are differences between pressure and direction, he emphasized. We talked about our soon to be infamous meeting with the clerk of the Privy Council on September 17, 2018, where I had asked him directly, when SNC-Lavalin was raised, 

“Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the attorney-general? I would strongly advise against it.”

He repeated in that airport room that I was not shuffled from being Minister of justice and attorney-general because of SNC-Lavalin. To which I thought to myself,  oh yes, I remember Scott Brison resigned from Treasury, so, of course, you then had to move the attorney-general and two other ministers and elevate two MPs to fill one spot. Good grief!

As he went on, I suddenly blurted out, “I don’t want you to say anything further about what happened after September 17.” To this day, I am still surprised I said that. I know why I did it and why I wanted him to stop talking – I was trying to leave space open for a constructive solution to the mess the PM and his office had created and that, in my overly optimistic opinion, could still be found. Either the Prime Minister knew everything that had happened and did not care and was clearly lying to me and the country, or he did not know what had been happening during the months after September 17 to try to exert pressure on me and was not in control of his office. He was either complicit or incompetent!!

If it was the former, and the Prime Minister admitted it to me, there was nothing I could do to help address this matter. It was over. Either for him or me. Or even potentially the government. If it was the latter, lord help the country, there still would have been a way to admit everything publicly, address the wrongs, and do better – much better; there still would have been a way to preserve the credibility of our system and respect the rule of law.

As I had in the past, I gave the Prime Minister the benefit of the doubt – for what would be the last time. I made it very clear I did not trust the people around him and that he was being badly advised in this situation. He made it equally clear to me that he would never fire some of them. So I laid out the only other options that existed: The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) stuck with its current approach of changing its story over and over again, which would only make things worse. In which case I would resign. Or he came out and came clean, and we placed our trust in the truth and in Canadians.

I pushed this second option. He said he would think about it and that we would talk again. I left the meeting feeling hopeful – in hindsight, too hopeful. I believed the Prime Minister had actually heard what I had to say and would genuinely think about it. “I am feeling positive,” I told Tim as we drove back home to our condo. That feeling of optimism was short-lived. That evening, while we were out for dinner with my sister and our nieces, a second meeting was arranged for the Prime Minister and me at 7:30 the next morning at the Fairmont Pacific Rim in Vancouver, where he was staying. I am pretty sure I did not get a wink of sleep that night.

As the sun rose across Vancouver on February 11, I was still optimistic that the PM might take my best advice and come clean. When we arrived at the hotel, Tim dropped me off out front. I saw Gerry across the lobby as I entered. He did not acknowledge me, and I felt my positive feelings floating away. The Prime Minister again greeted me casually and kindly at the door of his top-floor suite. But I got the sense that not all was going to go well. He mentioned that his friend owned the hotel as he gave me a quick tour of his suite. It was just the two of us. 

The North Shore Mountains were glistening beyond the picture windows. There was a large sectional sofa and a coffee table with an odd, huge sculpture in the middle that looked as if it was made of glass. The Prime Minister walked over to it and kind of chopped and punched it with his hand, like he was going to break it. It was rubber. He laughed. I was on edge and uncomfortable, so seeing the PM joking around was very disconcerting. Perhaps it was his way of trying to break the tension – although I am not sure he felt any. It kind of made things worse. This all seemed like a game for him. 

The Prime Minister launched the conversation by saying he had thought a lot about what I had said the day before, and then gave me his version of the “Shawcross” doctrine. The doctrine is the principle that states the attorney-general must act with a “judicial mind” and not a “political mind” in exercising responsibilities with respect to criminal matters; it is, of course, something the PM and I had talked about before. Honestly, I cannot tell you how many people have told me they are experts on this doctrine since this SNC-Lavalin story broke. What has always been crystal clear to me – at that moment and throughout – is exactly what my role was as the attorney-general. In the PM’s description and questioning it was clear he had talked to others. I remarked, “You have been talking to a lawyer.” 

We then proceeded to cover the same ground as the day before. I recounted, again, the incidents where pressure was attempted, and he again had excuses or answers for everything. He repeated that he would not clean house or fire anyone, and then he offered up, “If we did, we would not be government in October.” I replied, “I would be surprised if we were in government if you did not clean at least some of the house in some way and call some type of investigation.” I added, “After all, if you are confident you did nothing wrong, then why would you not want to do this?”

This was about the maintenance of the rule of law and the fundamental tenets of our democracy. Surely this was worthy of our attention. He again insisted that no one would be fired. At this point, I could feel the conversation beginning to turn. It was going to get personal, and with that, a bit more heated. He asked if I trusted him. He also asked if I trusted his judgment to build a team. Ugh. Such questions. “I want to believe in you and trust in you,” I replied. “But it is hard to separate the two questions. I do not trust the people around you any longer.” I could see the agitation visibly building in the Prime Minister. His mood was shifting. I remember seeing it. I remember feeling it. I had seen and felt this before on a few occasions, when he would get frustrated and angry.

But this was different. He became strident and disputed everything I had said. He made it clear that everyone in his office was telling the truth and that I, and by extension Jessica Prince, my chief of staff, and others, were not. He told me I had not experienced what I said I did. He used the line that would later become public, that I had “experienced things differently.” I knew what he was really asking. What he was saying. In that moment, I knew he wanted me to lie – to attest that what had occurred had not occurred. For me, this was just more evidence that he did not know me, did not know who I was or where I was from. Me – lie to protect a Crown government acting badly; a political party; a leader who was not taking responsibility??   He must be delusional!

 As he went on, I stared out the window over to the North Shore. I did not say anything for a while; I was struck with an overwhelming feeling of sadness and loss, and of deep disappointment. I knew then that the path that had led me to being the “Indian” in the Cabinet had veered in a different direction. The work was not over, certainly, but this man was not the leader I had thought him to be. It was clear. Now, it was clear.

I eventually told the Prime Minister that I was feeling uncomfortable and that I wanted to go. I told him the only option he had left me with was to consider whether I could stay in my position or whether I needed to resign, but that I needed to think more. Before I could leave, he started to talk in his aggressive and condescending way about how much work we had done and still had to do. I cut him off and countered, “Don’t blame me for this. This is not my fault.” 

I was laser angry in that moment. I felt him turning on me even more – I could see it in his face, his eyes, and in his mannerisms – because he wasn’t getting his way. I told him I had serious concerns and that my belief in him was very shaken. At some point, he asked me what he should say to the media. He had a media availability ostensibly on housing later that morning. He mentioned a line they were thinking of using: “Her presence in Cabinet speaks for itself …” Can you believe it? I told him I was not going to give him communications advice. How ridiculous. In my opinion, there is no spin on dishonesty. 

I got up and left. I had to think. “


Edited by Jaydee
Link to comment
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.


  • Create New...