Milnet.ca Forums

The Mess => Canadian Politics => Topic started by: Loachman on February 07, 2019, 21:16:44

Title: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 07, 2019, 21:16:44
It was hard to cut much out of this for brevity, as it is all so interesting.

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

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

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

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

by Paul Wells

Feb 7, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

The intervention would be the infraction.

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

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

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

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

So where are we?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s all very anecdotal and personal and back-patting, so I’m sorry for all of it. But the conclusion I draw is: Justin Trudeau’s senior PMO staff doesn’t have a lot of fans, even among people who wish Trudeau well and whose personal futures are bound up with his. That may start to matter a lot now.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on February 07, 2019, 21:29:33
Yup....this will go far.......

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/peoples-party-canada-bernier-tyler-thompson-1.4970112


Cheers
Larry

...for a second there, the article picture looked like Bernier standing beside Ann Coulter (with straightened hair)...fortunately his newest prospect isn’t anywhere close to being that extreme to the right.........
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on February 07, 2019, 21:51:51
And it could get much interestinger between now and the election.

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

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


Sure makes paying back taxpayers for inappropriate expenses or a $16 orange juice look like a drop of water in the ocean, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 07, 2019, 23:12:49
Sure makes paying back taxpayers for inappropriate expenses or a $16 orange juice look like a drop of water in the ocean, doesn't it?

It makes people like me not want to vote for the governing party...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 08, 2019, 09:58:41
Just a question: why is the RCMP not investigating what could be termed as “obstruction of justice “ as reported by the Globe and Mail?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FSTO on February 08, 2019, 10:07:31
Pretty scathing opinion piece from Paul Wells

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

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

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

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

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

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


- mod edit to fix link to article -
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 08, 2019, 10:24:22
Agree. The most telling to me is : But the way this government hoses money around for show sickens me.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 08, 2019, 10:48:00

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

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

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

And maybe her loyalty has been shaken by being punished for doing the right thing.  Mine would.   
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 08, 2019, 21:12:55
A few more snippets:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

Robert Fife Ottawa Bureau Chief Steven Chase

Published February 8, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

Chris Selley February 7, 2019 8:27 PM EST

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

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

And now she is an ex-justice minister.

Reporter: Was “any sort of influence” applied?

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

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

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

Yikes.

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

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

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

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

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

The PMO Has Discovered the Presumption of Innocence

February 7, 2019

Michael Bryant

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

“This response actually makes this whole thing worse,” Nesbitt tweeted. “The concern has always been ‘influence’ not ‘direct.’ The difference is between ‘corrupt’ and ‘stupid and corrupt,’ and the former is harder to detect, weed out & correct.”
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 09, 2019, 10:24:46
Political interference. Go to Court on one, no Court on another. The reasons are obviously political on both.

The Norman case.

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

IT WAS STUMBLING AND NERVELESS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 09, 2019, 11:13:22
Deceit dies in the light.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Old Sweat on February 09, 2019, 11:21:29
Andrew Coyne makes some interesting points in this column from The National Post. Still, we don't know yet one way or the other. As a card-carrying member of the CPC, I am finding it hard to keep my mouth shut, but I will.

Andrew Coyne: Hard to overstate seriousness of SNC-Lavalin allegations (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-hard-to-overstate-seriousness-of-snc-lavalin-allegations)
Will the pattern be repeated? We're about to find out whether this really is a country governed by the rule of law at all

February 8, 2019
9:17 PM EST

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

- mod edit to add link to article -
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Larry Strong on February 09, 2019, 11:45:31
AG sees no justification for probe of alleged PMO interference in SNC-Lavalin case

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

Quote
OTTAWA -- Current Justice Minister and Attorney General David Lametti said there has been no evidence to justify a committee investigation into whether or not Prime Minister Justin Trudeau or anyone in his office tried to have former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould abandon the prosecution of a case against SNC-Lavalin.

"All we've heard are allegations in a newspaper," Lametti, who replaced Wilson-Raybould when she was shuffled into the Veterans' Affairs portfolio last month, told CTV's Question Period host Evan Solomon.

"The prime minister has said that these allegations are false. We haven't had any corroborating evidence there. There hasn't been anything to my mind that justifies a committee investigation."


Despite this stated view, Lametti said that "it's up to the committee to do what it wants to do."

The opposition parties are pushing for an emergency meeting of the House Justice Committee to consider a motion that would call on Wilson-Raybould, Lametti, and several other high-profile government officials to testify.

"I'll let the committee decide. The committee is the master of its own docket. But certainly from what I have seen, and what the prime minister has said, I can reassure Canadians that there has been nothing inappropriate that has happened," Lametti said.

The call for this study was prompted by a bombshell Globe and Mail report that the Prime Minister's Office tried to get Wilson-Raybould to ask prosecutors to make a deal in the corruption and fraud case against the Quebec-based engineering and construction company.

According to the Globe, Wilson-Raybould was unwilling to play along and did not follow through despite the high-level pressure. CTV News has not independently verified the story.

The bombshell report prompted intense backlash in the House of Commons, with the Conservatives framing Wilson-Raybould's ministerial move as a demotion for not following the PMO’s orders, while the NDP said the Globe’s report proves that the Liberals offer special treatment to their wealthy friends.

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

"Given the disturbing reports of political interference by the Prime Minister's Office in the functions of the Attorney General of Canada, and given the minister of Veterans Affairs recent comments that ‘It is a pillar of our democracy that our system of justice be free from even the perception of political interference and uphold the highest levels of public confidence, the committee hold no fewer than four meetings," reads the motion.

'Where there's smoke there's fire'

On CTV's Question Period, Conservative Deputy Leader Lisa Raitt said that because these allegations have been made, it's incumbent that the committee hears from those believed to be involved to get a full picture of what happened.

"It's not like nothing was happening where there's smoke, there's fire," Raitt said, adding that the Liberals on the committee better support the motion otherwise "they look like their hands are completely dirty… It's going to come out and if it's not going to be through a parliamentary process and it's not going to be through the ethics Commissioner, it's going to be something else."

NDP MP Nathan Cullen echoed this, calling the committee vote on the motion "the moment of truth."

He said if nothing happened, they should be comfortable coming before the committee and saying so.

"Until we get answers we need to try every tool in the toolbox to try to pull those answers out of government," Cullen said.

No need to recuse, yet

Lametti said he is basing his denial -- and the denial repeated from various Liberals over the last few days -- that there was "no direction and no pressure" on the words of the prime minister.

"The prime minister has said that he did not direct my predecessor, so I'm basing it, I'm basing it on what he has said publicly," Lametti said.

Asked if he thinks he should recuse himself from the matter as the current AG, Lametti said he sees "no reason."

"There hasn't been any reason to recuse myself in any discussions that I have privy to up until now. Obviously, if there is ever a case where I feel that there's some sort of conflict, personal conflict on my part, or situational conflict, I'll recuse myself. But I don't see any now. I certainly haven't seen any yet," Lametti said.

The NDP have asked Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion to investigate this case.

"Obstruction of justice charges have been brought against Canadians with far less evidence than we already have here," Cullen said.

In an email to CTV News, former ethics czar Mary Dawson said that while the time it takes to complete an investigation can vary based on the circumstances, "it usually, but not always, takes more time than six or seven months" for an investigation to be completed.

Hasn't spoken to his predecessor

Cullen said that Wilson-Raybould's silence so far has meant many outstanding questions have remained unanswered.

"Who spoke to Jody Wilson-Raybould about this SNC-Lavalin case? Did they ask her to take this plea option out which would give the opportunity to the company for billions of dollars in contracts? And was it because of that refusal… was she then fired?" Cullen said.

On Friday Wilson-Raybould said as the former AG she is "bound by solicitor-client privilege in this matter."

Asked if he had spoken to his predecessor about whether or not she felt pressured regarding this case, Lametti said he hasn't, and doesn't plan on doing so.


Cheers
Larry
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 09, 2019, 11:59:32
After denying knowing Christ three times, Peter broke down, repented and asked for God's forgiveness.

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

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 09, 2019, 14:11:17
After denying knowing Christ three times, Peter broke down, repented and asked for God's forgiveness.

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

The PM says there was no wrong doing, so there was no wrongdoing.  Deal with it and quit questioning your leader.  You think this is some type of democracy?  :sarcasm:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on February 09, 2019, 14:49:33
I've got to be honest, kind of on the fence about the whole root here. Graft and corruption are pretty endemic in a lot of countries, but some are more open about it then others.  I'm okay with holding individuals responsible for it, but given the prevalence of sprawling multinationals and the complicated nature of corporations, banning companies from all federal bidding as a result seems a bit heavy handed.  Are you looking at only the specific arm that did the deed, or do you apply it to the parent corporation and everything under the umbrella?

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

Just wish they'd have the intestinal fortitude to be honest about this one.  Their PR and spin is usually much better too, so this whole thing is a bit of a mess.  I don't think it would make sense to ban SNC from all GoC procurement, but if the legislation is a bit too broad or doesn't make sense, make a decision, explain why publicly, and fix the legislation. These clowns and their focus on appearance are their own worst enemies; they keep hiding this kind of stuff or do other backroom shenanigans to protect their 'brand' and it is blowing up on them. I think they'd be better off making an unpopular decision, riding through any short term pain, and go from there.  People that are against them already won't change their opinions, but this kind of stuff alienates their own crowd, as well as the mass of unaffiliated voters that don't go with any particular party.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ballz on February 09, 2019, 15:49:44
I've got to be honest, kind of on the fence about the whole root here.

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

The issue here is political interference in the justice system, aka Russia / China / and a whole other host of countries we don't want to be like, which is why we try and safeguard the independence of the judiciary system. It wouldn't matter if this was about political interference in the SNC case, the VCDS case (which there is already plenty of doubt about whether or not there was), or whether it was political interference in a charge of theft under $5000 against a homeless person...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 09, 2019, 16:10:38
And here we go again with the game winning formula of Liberals, corruption and one or two Quebec companies. I’m no fan of JT, but one would think they would be astute enough to stay away from these things. Does Chrétien’s law firm represent SNC?

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

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



Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 09, 2019, 17:39:49
Quote
"All we've heard are allegations in a newspaper," Lametti, who replaced Wilson-Raybould when she was shuffled into the Veterans' Affairs portfolio last month, told CTV's Question Period host Evan Solomon. "The prime minister has said that these allegations are false. We haven't had any corroborating evidence there. There hasn't been anything to my mind that justifies a committee investigation."

Despite this stated view, Lametti said that "it's up to the committee to do what it wants to do."


House Justice Committee: 6 Liberals, 3 Conservatives, and 1 NDP. How do you think they will vote?
Quote
Among the staffers that the Conservatives and NDP want to hear from at the committee: Principal Secretary to the Prime Minister Gerald Butts; Senior Advisors Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard; and Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff Jessica Prince.

Anyway, testifying under oath doesn't mean you get the truth.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on February 09, 2019, 17:45:41
i don't get your post, I think you missed the root here... this controversy is not about the fate of SNC, or whether or not the legislation they are facing is good/bad/ugly and could/should be changed, which is what most of your post seems to be about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Does seem like a pretty immediate karmic balance though.  They fired the former AG, tried to spin it like it wasn't a downgrade, then are almost immediately bit on the arse. Seems pretty feckless to expect people to cover for you after you discard them.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 09, 2019, 19:38:48
Does seem like a pretty immediate karmic balance though.  They fired the former AG, tried to spin it like it wasn't a downgrade, then are almost immediately bit on the arse. Seems pretty feckless to expect people to cover for you after you discard them.

Are we taking bets on when she crosses the floor? She could do so while continuing to primly (and accurately) cliam solicitor-client privilege- and that would speak volumes. She would be an instantly valued member of the CPC, and could potentially tip an election that is suddenly more open to contention than it was a few days ago.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Colin P on February 10, 2019, 02:33:58
Not sure the CPC would trust her enough. plus I think she may come out of this as the only one not covered in poop. If this takes down JT the Liberal party may need her to rebuild.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Journeyman on February 10, 2019, 10:06:55
Regrettably, I suspect that some people are rubbing their hands too gleefully, ignoring Canadian's disinterest in most things political … except for some niche groups with a personal interest -- pipelines, defence procurement, aboriginal apologies, etc;  governmental ethics doesn't seem to have a strong constituency. 

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

Sad, but my  :2c: nonetheless.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 10, 2019, 10:34:33
Regrettably, I suspect that some people are rubbing their hands too gleefully, ignoring Canadian's disinterest in most things political … except for some niche groups with a personal interest -- pipelines, defence procurement, aboriginal apologies, etc;  governmental ethics doesn't seem to have a strong constituency. 

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

Sad, but my  :2c: nonetheless.

Your 2c is pretty accurate.  I doubt this will take down the LPC.  A few more things like this might but this in particular won’t.  Also she’d likely sit as an independant before crossing if anything.  Her salary as a minister would be hard to give up...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: suffolkowner on February 10, 2019, 11:47:31
I'm curious why we don't see in Canadian politics more caucus revolts like our Australian friends. Our political party leaders being elected from the general membership and then the caucus gets stuck with maybe an inferior "boss" and PMO. Party discipline just seems extremely strong here even at the expense of future party success. I can see the Liberal party being reduced to a minority in the next election as some of the mushy movable vote switching back to the Conservatives plus the youth vote might not come out as strong with pot already legal
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 10, 2019, 12:25:38
A week is a long time in politics.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 10, 2019, 12:46:30
I'm curious why we don't see in Canadian politics more caucus revolts like our Australian friends. Our political party leaders being elected from the general membership and then the caucus gets stuck with maybe an inferior "boss" and PMO. Party discipline just seems extremely strong here even at the expense of future party success. I can see the Liberal party being reduced to a minority in the next election as some of the mushy movable vote switching back to the Conservatives plus the youth vote might not come out as strong with pot already legal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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








Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Colin P on February 11, 2019, 13:40:12
Our system is becoming mostly a 1 person dictatorship for 4 years with the PMO running everything, I like to see the majority party MP's have more power over the PM.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on February 11, 2019, 14:13:20
Regrettably, I suspect that some people are rubbing their hands too gleefully, ignoring Canadian's disinterest in most things political … except for some niche groups with a personal interest -- pipelines, defence procurement, aboriginal apologies, etc;  governmental ethics doesn't seem to have a strong constituency. 

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

Sad, but my  :2c: nonetheless.

Any day now we'll get a "but Scheer hates the gay abortionists" tweet from someone high up in the gov, and SNC will quietly slip below the horizon.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 11, 2019, 16:36:34
Any day now we'll get a "but Scheer hates the gay abortionists" tweet from someone high up in the gov, and SNC will quietly slip below the horizon.

TBH if history is any indicator we'll have the CPC step on its own d**k and the channel will change.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on February 11, 2019, 16:46:16
Veeery interesting, Klink. It's starting to pile up, it seems.   https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/mark-norman-davie-shipyard-breach-trust-1.5014538?cmp=rss&fbclid=IwAR3IF3lNQN5ftowxUraPxQ0eZPQ0GUzzAPW3brTD754hoWJD1Xj6KPbcf-0
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: dapaterson on February 11, 2019, 17:43:23
TBH if history is any indicator we'll have the CPC step on its own d**k and the channel will change.

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

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

Quote
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer met with the head of SNC-Lavalin in May 2018 to discuss criminal charges facing the Quebec construction giant.

Scheer’s office confirmed the Conservative leader discussed the “deferred prosecution agreement” sought by SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal fraud and corruption charges. The meeting with SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce took place last May 29, months after the Liberal government introduced so-called “DPAs” in its omnibus budget bill.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on February 11, 2019, 17:57:53
You mean like the article on the weekend stating that Scheer has also gone to chat with SNC about their prosecution?

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

If that article isn't evidence of the media desperately trying to help the Liberals, I don't know what is. Scheer didn't hide a provision in an omnibus budget (that he campaigned on not using), and then allegedly fire his AG after trying to pressure her to use that provision illegally to help a company that funneled $100K in illegal donations to his party to help his election.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Infanteer on February 11, 2019, 19:21:21
If that article isn't evidence of the media desperately trying to help the Liberals, I don't know what is.

Well, you are looking at the Star.  Go the National Post, and the pitchforks are out.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chief Engineer on February 11, 2019, 21:34:48
If that article isn't evidence of the media desperately trying to help the Liberals, I don't know what is. Scheer didn't hide a provision in an omnibus budget (that he campaigned on not using), and then allegedly fire his AG after trying to pressure her to use that provision illegally to help a company that funneled $100K in illegal donations to his party to help his election.  :facepalm:

Now if that reporter just comes forward and recounts what really happened during that interview that would be a cherry on the top.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ballz on February 11, 2019, 22:02:46
I'm starting to the think the Liberals know they can do whatever they want and they'll be making no apologies about it...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on February 11, 2019, 22:39:32
Split this stuff into its own topic, as I'm sure the approval ratings thread will get more bumps as we get closer to the election cycle.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 12, 2019, 08:45:21
Quote
Quote from: PuckChaser on Yesterday at 15:57:53
If that article isn't evidence of the media desperately trying to help the Liberals, I don't know what is. Scheer didn't hide a provision in an omnibus budget (that he campaigned on not using), and then allegedly fire his AG after trying to pressure her to use that provision illegally to help a company that funneled $100K in illegal donations to his party to help his election.
 

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

This was a strategic move by the Liberals. The amendment to the CC took months to conceive, write and pass through Parliament. If there was no change to the CC, there was no reason to supposedly lobby the Justice Minister.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 12, 2019, 11:27:17
http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190212/textview

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t want to be too firm on this point. Maybe there’s a case for remediation agreements of this kind, in principle — after all, the United States and Britain have them. But there’s a context here that can’t be ignored. The only reason the provision is on the books in Canada is because of a concerted public relations campaign on the part of SNC-Lavalin. Charged with fraud and corruption in 2015, the company reacted, not in the usual way, by fighting it in court or bargaining with prosecutors, but by lobbying politicians and their staff.

And it worked: the government custom-drafted the legislation to the designs of a company that was at that moment facing criminal charges, then smuggled it into law via the 2018 omnibus budget bill, of all things. And, when the director of public prosecutions, as is her right, declined to make use of the new provision, preferring to proceed in the old-fashioned way, the prime minister’s office allegedly leaned on the attorney general to overrule her.

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

That at any rate is the allegation. It has still not been properly denied. It would seem worth investigating why.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 12, 2019, 12:44:19
Just breaking now- Jody Wilson-Raybould has resigned from cabinet. This is about to get very interesting...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 12, 2019, 12:49:22
No kidding.  Not a good start to an election year lol.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 12, 2019, 12:50:41
She has also retained counsel for advice on what she can and can talk about, so it looks like she intends to once her ducks are in a row. The lawyer's no slouch, either- eight years as a Supreme Court justice. Get your popcorn out, kids.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 12, 2019, 12:54:47
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/jody-wilson-raybould-resigns-from-trudeau-cabinet-1.4293529
Quote
OTTAWA – Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould has resigned from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet.

This comes amid ongoing questions about into whether Trudeau or anyone in his office tried to have Wilson-Raybould abandon the prosecution of a case against SNC-Lavalin when she was justice minister and attorney general.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has called an emergency cabinet meeting for Tuesday morning, though most ministers are in their ridings or fanned out across the country, so many will be teleconferencing in and not all together around the cabinet table in Ottawa.

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

More here: https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/02/11/pmo-interference-working-title/187968
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 12, 2019, 12:55:43
Just breaking now- Jody Wilson-Raybould has resigned from cabinet. This is about to get very interesting...
She has also retained counsel for advice on what she can and can talk about, so it looks like she intends to once her ducks are in a row. The lawyer's no slouch, either- eight years as a Supreme Court justice. Get your popcorn out, kids.
Good catch -- here's her letter (source (https://jwilson-raybould.liberal.ca/news-nouvelles/statement-from-the-honourable-jody-wilson-raybould-member-of-parliament-for-vancouver-granville/)).
:pop: indeed ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on February 12, 2019, 13:03:30
Can you imagine the tension in both Parties war rooms right now?  Will she, won't she....happened, didn't happen,... scream to the press, ask to respect her privacy?  Popcorn  time is right....
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: meni0n on February 12, 2019, 13:41:31
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot in front of the Chinese. Imagine what kind of optics this is projecting internationally.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on February 12, 2019, 13:54:38
She has also retained counsel for advice on what she can and can talk about, so it looks like she intends to once her ducks are in a row. The lawyer's no slouch, either- eight years as a Supreme Court justice. Get your popcorn out, kids.

I hear it's a good sign when your former lawyer gets a heavy hitting lawyer for advice on what to do with you....  :pop: :pop: :pop:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 12, 2019, 14:14:22
Is she going to be the Michael Cohen of the North?  Time for the PMO to start tweeting "Fake News" and have some Make Corruption Great Again hats.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on February 12, 2019, 14:17:03
Is she going to be the Michael Cohen of the North?  Time for the PMO to start tweeting "Fake News" and have some Make Corruption Great Again hats.
:rofl: :rofl:
And nothing but net for the win!!! ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 12, 2019, 14:26:21
Is she going to be the Michael Cohen of the North?  Time for the PMO to start tweeting "Fake News" and have some Make Corruption Great Again hats.

No. She will speak to this issue enough of what she can speak about to preserve her own integrity, to cement her reputation as a straight shooter, and also to show that she still possesses enough discretion and good sense to be very valuable to the CPC. She's not going to burn down the house on the way out because that impacts the CPC's risk calculation if they bring her onboard. She will cover her own butt, and more pointedly will not cover PMJT's.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 12, 2019, 14:28:18
Of course she will.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 12, 2019, 14:38:40
I hear it's a good sign when your former lawyer gets a heavy hitting lawyer for advice on what to do with you....  :pop: :pop: :pop:
:nod:

For the record, here's the bio (https://blg.com/en/Our-People/Cromwell-Thomas) of the jilted lawyer's lawyer.

... show that she still possesses enough discretion and good sense to be very valuable to the CPC. She's not going to burn down the house on the way out because that impacts the CPC's risk calculation if they bring her onboard ...
I agree with your read on her calculus, but I'd be very surprised to see her move to Team Blue.  I've been wrong before, but I don't see her aching for that end of the political spectrum.  Also, if it's true that she's willing to speak the truth to Team Red power, that wouldn't necessarily change much working for Team Blue.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 12, 2019, 14:39:07
Award for the best ill timed comments.

PM Trudeau in BC yesterday:
Quote
"She confirmed for me a conversation we had this fall, where I told her directly that any decisions on matters involving the director of public prosecutions were hers alone," Trudeau said Monday.

"I respect her view that, due to privilege, she can't comment or add on matters recently before the media. I also highlight that we're bound by cabinet confidentiality. In our system of governance, her presence in cabinet should speak for itself."

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

Then the really ill timed - "In our system of governance, her presence in cabinet should speak for itself."
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on February 12, 2019, 14:41:07
Is she going to be the Michael Cohen of the North?  Time for the PMO to start tweeting "Fake News" and have some Make Corruption Great Again hats.

Michael Cohen but actually credible.

The former AG is almost beyond reproach in how she's handled the situation thus far.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 12, 2019, 14:42:30
Then the really ill timed - "In our system of governance, her presence in cabinet should speak for itself."
For as long as said presence lasted, anyway.  #StrawThatBrokeTheCamelsBack?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 12, 2019, 14:53:04
I agree with your read on her calculus, but I'd be very surprised to see her move to Team Blue.  I've been wrong before, but I don't see her aching for that end of the political spectrum.  Also, if it's true that she's willing to speak the truth to Team Red power, that wouldn't necessarily change much working for Team Blue.

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

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

I think it also depends on what her read is on how the next election will go. If we're seeing the start of a pre-election LPC implosion (I'm not yet convinced we are, but she knows much more than I), she might see crossing as a necessity, in the interest of her own future, and in the interest of getting a First Nations voice solidly and prominently into the CPC.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 12, 2019, 15:14:39
... she might see crossing as a necessity, in the interest of her own future, and in the interest of getting a First Nations voice solidly and prominently into the CPC.
On the bit in yellow, I keep forgetting we're talking about Homo Politicus no matter what party they're in, so future positioning is a factor.

Well, based on at least some recent events (https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/12/06/andrew-scheer-boo-first-nations-chiefs-afn_a_23610886/), Team Blue could use some boost in that area, especially now that anti-PMJT memes sometimes include "why aren't First Nations getting clean water?"

Here's the latest (https://media.conservative.ca/en/news-releases/andrew-scheer-trudeau-must-preserve-snc-lavalin-records-after-wilson-raybould-resignation) out of Team Blue on this one:
Quote
The Honourable Andrew Scheer, Leader of Canada’s Conservatives and the Official Opposition today called on Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to preserve all documents relating to the ongoing SNC-Lavalin Affair after the cabinet resignation of Jody Wilson-Raybould.

In a letter sent to Trudeau this afternoon, Scheer called on him to ensure all documents including “memos, letters, emails, pins, SMS messages, and handwritten notes” pertaining to the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin be preserved amidst the pending cabinet shuffle to replace Ms. Wilson-Raybould.

The request applies to records held by former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould, Attorney General David Lametti, and senior Prime Minister’s Office officials including, but not limited to, Katie Telford, Gerald Butts, Mathieu Bouchard, and Elder Marques.

“With Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s resignation from cabinet, and a cabinet shuffle imminent, it’s absolutely imperative that Mr. Trudeau ensure the preservation of these records,” Scheer said. “Canadians deserve to know the truth around what happened and these records must be preserved.”

Scheer also said Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s resignation is a sign of a government in disarray.

“Mr. Trudeau’s ethical lapses and his disastrous handling of this latest scandal have thrown his government into chaos,” Scheer said. “He promised Canadians open and transparent government and he has betrayed that promise. Canadians deserve better.”

Click here (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ig28w8l5d5w5r6p/Letter%20to%20the%20PM%20-%20February%2012.pdf?dl=0) to view the letter.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 12, 2019, 15:17:03
I would still wager that with all of this, the 2019 election is still for JT to lose, not for the CPC to win. She could move to an independent status, in fact she probably should, just to twist the knife a little more.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on February 12, 2019, 15:23:42
I would still wager that with all of this, the 2019 election is still for JT to lose, not for the CPC to win. She could move to an independent status, in fact she probably should, just to twist the knife a little more.

Independent does the most damage to the Trudeau Liberals. It solidifies that the decision she made was to uphold the rule of law and completely non-partisan. If she crosses the floor to any party, it can be spun as her being disgruntled at the "demotion" (I hate calling the MVA as a demotion), and therefore she shouldn't be believed.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on February 12, 2019, 15:30:42
...For the record, here's the bio (http://bit.ly/2WZgg7h) of the jilted lawyer's lawyer.

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

“ • Mentor, Trudeau Foundation”


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

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Technoviking on February 12, 2019, 15:33:32
(I hate calling the MVA as a demotion),
[tangent]
But it is a demotion. There are roughly 650,000 veterans in Canada.  There are roughly 36,700,000 Canadians.  That is roughly 1.77% of the general population.  It may be an important portfolio, which is why there is a cabinet minister at the top, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it's a senior cabinet post.
[/tangent]
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 12, 2019, 15:35:39
It’s like Trump University, only sunnier.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Petard on February 13, 2019, 16:43:25
I wonder why little attention has been given to why the Prosecution Service of Canada does not want to use a DPA for the SNC Lavalin case, this seems to be the crux of the latest controversy.  The only indication I could find, on why PPSC is continuing to prosecute, is in articles like the one below from last Oct. It looks like SNC’s definition of what reparations were due as part of an DPA did not meet the criminal code of Canada’s definition of it. Not long after that SNC began meeting again with PMO staff

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





https://business.financialpost.com/pmn/business-pmn/snc-lavalin-federal-prosecutors-wont-negotiate-a-deal-company-may-appeal
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2019, 20:01:34
I cannot see this one dying down quickly. There is chum in the water, and no media outlet - including CBC and the Toronto Star - can afford to be left out of the feeding frenzy at this point.

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

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

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

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

Published on: February 12, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

Published on February 12, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

By Jesse Ferreras

February 13, 2019 12:28 am

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

<snip>

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

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

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

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

Trudeau said the allegations in that story were false.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

<snip

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

"It baffles me that my Liberal colleagues have seen what has transpired over the last six days and they say, 'Nothing untoward here.' Clearly, Ms. Wilson-Raybould should be called to appear before this committee."
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 13, 2019, 20:19:46
-"Conservative and NDP members banded together to demand that Trudeau's most senior adviser, Gerald Butts, and Jody Wilson-Raybould - the former Justice minister at the heart of this affair - be added to the committee's proposed witness list. The Liberal members voted in a bloc against a motion from NDP MP Nathan Cullen to do just that."

So he slithers out again.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 13, 2019, 20:21:27
I’ve mentioned before that most incidents involving Trudeau and the LPC have not really been earth shattering but this last one is a big one. One that might bring those other incidents into a larger context.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 13, 2019, 20:54:37
Thanks for that Loachman.

This caught my eye.

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

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

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

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

What happens when your man doesn't stay bought?

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2019, 22:28:07
From my earliest post on this thread:

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

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

Somebody's fan club may be starting to crumble.

Knives may not be out yet, but some may have been loosened in their sheaths.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 13, 2019, 22:33:27
Importantly, the Liberals on the Committee voted, against a motion by the opposition, that all proceeding in this matter will be in-camera.


Quote
In camera records
In camera records include, for example, transcripts of in camera meetings, draft reports or documents prepared for or distributed at an in camera meeting, or any document referring to in camera parliamentary proceedings or documents from which the proceedings at an in camera meeting may be deduced. Consent to the disclosure of these records should never be given by House officials. Moreover, the disclosure of in camera materials constitutes a breach of the privilege of the House, and could lead to a finding of contempt of Parliament.  Accordingly, House officials should indicate, in such cases, that the House objects to the disclosure of such documents.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: daftandbarmy on February 13, 2019, 22:50:03
From my earliest post on this thread:

Somebody's fan club may be starting to crumble.

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

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

―  William Shakespeare,  Julius Caesar
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 13, 2019, 22:51:50
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-justice-committee-becomes-a-farce-not-seen-since-liberal-sponsorship-scandal?video_autoplay=true

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Liberal MP Ehsassi was at least honest when he laid out his position — that in his personal opinion, “there is nothing to be concerned about.” He said the Liberal members had “checked our partisan hats at the door” and the real problem was the “political dynamic on the other side.” The committee allowed for a certain amount of grandstanding from the opposition members.

A government in total chaos

Poilievre called Justin Trudeau “despicable and cowardly” for attacking Wilson-Raybould, “who is legally incapable of defending herself.”
The opposition deputy leader, Lisa Raitt, said the Trudeau Liberals constitute “a government in total chaos.” But at least she got to the nub of the issue — that someone in the Prime Minister’s Office is alleged to have applied pressure on the attorney general to overrule the director of public prosecutions, Kathleen Roussel, in the SNC-Lavalin case. Raitt said the committee’s job was to find out what form the pressure took and who applied it.

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

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

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

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

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

I have argued in recent columns that the interactions between the Prime Minister’s Office and the attorney general, on the available evidence, likely fell short of interference. After the abject performance of the Liberals on the justice committee, I’m not so sure. Trudeau is sunk in the mire and it’s getting messy.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 13, 2019, 23:01:30
Question:  has the CEO of SNC Lavallin been arrested and tossed in jail?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 13, 2019, 23:02:30
Another point of view on what initially triggered this whole mess:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

More at link above
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Petard on February 14, 2019, 00:04:40
Neil Macdonald missed the mark entirely why SNC was not given "a deal", it's because they would not agree to making reparations that would meet the Criminal Code definition of them as part of a remediation agreement, had they it is very likely this would've gone away and no one the wiser. 

His contention that SNC was just doing what everyone does in Middle East, and not endemic of the company's ethics itself, doesn't hold up when you look at this story. They're claiming most of the old guard involved with those acts are gone, and they've cleaned house, yet remain unwilling to pay what was due as part of a DPA for the Libya bribery and fraud charges, so it seems  that some of that "old curved ethics thinking" remains.
https://business.financialpost.com/news/snc-lavalin-faces-criminal-probe-over-montreal-bridge-contract-documents-reveal#comments-area
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Ostrozac on February 14, 2019, 00:30:54
Question:  has the CEO of SNC Lavallin been arrested and tossed in jail?

The former CEO pled guilty to a bribery charge just a couple of weeks ago, but according to the press coverage it looks like he's serving house arrest rather than prison time.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 14, 2019, 11:56:35
A summation of some views from Quebec. I guess they have forgotten what has happened in Alberta, the source of some of the funds for equalization transfers.

http://nationalpost.pressreader.com/national-post-latest-edition/20190214/textview

Quebec’s views on SNC-Lavalin starkly different
- 14 Feb 19
    Francophone pundits rush to defend firm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“I can’t help but wonder whether English Canada’s punditocracy would be as indignant if the prime minister’s office had seemingly been trying to save a Toronto or Calgary-based multinational corporation instead of a Quebec one,” wrote Lise Ravary, in English, for the Montreal Gazette on Tuesday. “SNC-Lavalin is Canada’s largest engineering firm. Not just Quebec’s.”
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: YZT580 on February 14, 2019, 13:13:50
So, let me get this straight: the Quebec consensus is that it is OK to circumvent the law provided that jobs are protected.  It is Ok for the PM and his office to pressure justice but only if it protects jobs.  Oh, and those jobs have to be in Quebec.  I didn't read anything by those same pundits encouraging the government to go the extra mile to ensure that the pipelines were built.  It would seem that in their view, pragmatism trumps law.  It sort of puts a lie to the storyline that they have followed vis-a-vis China doesn't it?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 14, 2019, 15:06:00
So, let me get this straight: the Quebec consensus is that it is OK to circumvent the law provided that jobs are protected.  It is Ok for the PM and his office to pressure justice but only if it protects jobs.  Oh, and those jobs have to be in Quebec.  I didn't read anything by those same pundits encouraging the government to go the extra mile to ensure that the pipelines were built.  It would seem that in their view, pragmatism trumps law.  It sort of puts a lie to the storyline that they have followed vis-a-vis China doesn't it?

And maybe that is the point.  The LPC want QC votes next election.  The LPC is seen protecting SNC at all costs including ethics breaches and possible obstruction of justice so as to garner that province's votes. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 14, 2019, 16:41:32
Why would Quebec want to risk their golden cow?

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

Trudeau might get found guilty of another ethics violation, he'll maybe pay a small fine?  Throw some tax money around, ban handguns and call it a day.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin casehat
Post by: Remius on February 14, 2019, 18:19:37
Why would Quebec want to risk their golden cow?

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

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

Maybe, maybe not.  Time will tell if it does damage them.  It will depend on when and if Wilson Raybouod says anything.  One thing is that they will not be able to say they do things different, are the feminist option or true friends of the native community.  They gave up those mantles with what looks like a cover up and punishing her for refusing to go along.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 14, 2019, 18:57:03
Unlikely to compensate those losses with pickups among Quebecers and Newfies that were working the camps in Alberta or anybody else in Alberta, Saskatchewan or BC.

I reckon BC will go tribal again and revert to the NDP where it doesn't go Tory.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 14, 2019, 19:39:26
From the Globe & Mail evening update. The Liberals grasping at straws IMO.

Quote
Liberal MP says Wilson-Raybould might have lost justice post because she doesn’t speak French
 
Anthony Housefather, the Liberal MP who will chair hearings into the Jody Wilson-Raybould affair, told a Montreal radio station today that Ms. Wilson-Raybould might have been moved out of the roles of attorney general and justice minister because she does not speak French. As Steven Chase reports this afternoon, Mr. Housefather was addressing allegations that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was moved out of the justice portfolio over her refusal to shelve a prosecution against Montreal construction giant SNC-Lavalin. He said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has the right to choose who is in what cabinet post and there could be several reasons why people are shuffled. “For example ... there’s a lot of legal issues coming up in Quebec and the Prime Minister may well have decided he needed a justice minister that could speak French,” Mr. Housefather said.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 14, 2019, 20:08:34
From the Globe & Mail evening update. The Liberals grasping at straws IMO.

More like finding sad excuses. This is getting sad.

The PMO is really bad at damage control.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Halifax Tar on February 14, 2019, 20:15:28
Telford and Butts need to go.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 14, 2019, 23:43:11
But if Butts and Telford go, what then of the hollow man?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: YZT580 on February 15, 2019, 00:21:55
The 3 bi-elections coming up will tell the tale.  Not so much who wins the seat but the gain or loss of votes to the liberal party.  I think though that this just gave Singh a by into a seat in the commons.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Halifax Tar on February 15, 2019, 06:18:26
But if Butts and Telford go, what then of the hollow man?

I guess we would see.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Furniture on February 15, 2019, 10:10:30
Unlikely to compensate those losses with pickups among Quebecers and Newfies that were working the camps in Alberta or anybody else in Alberta, Saskatchewan or BC.

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

It may cost them seats in Ontario as well, where they just tossed a provincial government that was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The CPC have already showed us that it's possible to get a majority without strong support in Quebec so long as you hold the West and Ontario.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 15, 2019, 12:10:02
It may cost them seats in Ontario as well, where they just tossed a provincial government that was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The CPC have already showed us that it's possible to get a majority without strong support in Quebec so long as you hold the West and Ontario.

Maybe a few yes.

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

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

I realise that it is provincial vs federal but many voters won't see it that way.   
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 15, 2019, 12:13:24
The 3 bi-elections coming up will tell the tale.  Not so much who wins the seat but the gain or loss of votes to the liberal party.  I think though that this just gave Singh a by into a seat in the commons.

I didn't think of that... But yeah, they just gave a big 'frig you' to potential constituents in B.C. Wilson-Raybould is well respected there.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 15, 2019, 12:19:04
They are burying themselves deeper daily. They'll be looking for something big and controversial, that doesn't do a lot of damage to their base, to knock this off the table.

Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 15, 2019, 12:35:51
They are burying themselves deeper daily. They'll be looking for something big and controversial, that doesn't do a lot of damage to their base, to knock this off the table.

Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.

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

She hasn't spoken yet, clearly her lawyer is taking her time. Clearly they've gotta be bracing for that and preparing a countermove- probably not directly against her, but rather something to divert attention after a couple days.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 16, 2019, 09:57:07
Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.

That would be the lowest hanging fruit.  However, faster and more politically visible than C-71, a ban would be the quickest to implement and would give hem the boost they need to regain their majority poll numbers.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 16, 2019, 13:11:45
I don't think that stupid new anti-gun laws gain them any significant numbers of votes. It's not a deciding factor for most people outside of firearms owners and gun grabbers, and those people don't generally seem to switch sides.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 16, 2019, 14:16:06
https://theprovince.com/opinion/john-ivison-for-mishandling-wilson-raybould-and-snc-lavalin-trudeau-has-nobody-to-blame-but-himself/wcm/9bb90740-098b-452d-82d0-443dd72a9fb6

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

Published: February 15, 2019

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The buck stops with any prime minister, but this one in particular has been more forceful than most in inserting himself into every crisis. He is the public face of those decisions - and in the SNC affair, he has become a figure of public derision.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 16, 2019, 14:30:55
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-trudeau-and-wilson-raybould-shouldnt-even-have-been-talking-about-snc-lavalin?video_autoplay=true

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

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

February 15, 2019 9:32 PM EST

Consider solicitor-client privilege officially waived.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

If the attorney general can’t instruct the DPP to go easy on SNC-Lavalin, and if the DPP declines to do so on her own, what on earth was there for the prime minister and the attorney general to discuss? This is especially pertinent in light of the general obligation on all public office-holders, as described in the federal Conflict of Interest and Post-Employment Code: that they should not merely obey the law, but “perform their official duties … in a manner that will bear the closest scrutiny.”
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 16, 2019, 14:36:27
Snap Loachman!

You just beat me to it.

I was going to highlight this bit.

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

So its defenders’ stated rationale for sparing SNC-Lavalin from prosecution - the dire consequences for jobs and the economy should the company be convicted, and presumably collapse - is not only economically suspect (SNC-Lavalin is not the only employer in the construction industry, nor would the work for which it has contracted disappear just because the company did) and morally dubious. It’s expressly precluded in law.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 16, 2019, 17:40:44
I don't think that stupid new anti-gun laws gain them any significant numbers of votes. It's not a deciding factor for most people outside of firearms owners and gun grabbers, and those people don't generally seem to switch sides.

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

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

Even if C-71 is stalled in committee, i'd watch for a series of prohibition orders and/or OICs converting all restricted firearms to prohibited status to come in the next few months. Bill C-71 may die on the order table when the writ is dropped, but Trudeau will have his "safer Canadian communities" in time for October.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on February 16, 2019, 23:44:07
Honest question...if the Liberals try that, couldn’t the CPC just go along with it, de-power the Grit distraction effort to neglible influence, return the focus to where it rightly belong — on the 2-headed (so far) Hydra of (alleged) inappropriate PMO influence on the workings of Government, then revert when they came  back into power with a majority?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 17, 2019, 13:06:01
Honest question...if the Liberals try that, couldn’t the CPC just go along with it, de-power the Grit distraction effort to neglible influence, return the focus to where it rightly belong — on the 2-headed (so far) Hydra of (alleged) inappropriate PMO influence on the workings of Government, then revert when they came  back into power with a majority?

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

And I don't believe for a minute that the Conservatives will form a majority government.  The Liberal campaign machine is very, very good at what it does and their "leader" is far more charismatic than either Scheer or Bernier.  The NDP will falter under Singh and be forced to more closely align themselves with the Liberals to survive.  These "scandals" will soon be buried and forgotten when the money taps open and the social engineering policy changes begins to shape the election battlespace in Trudeau's favour as long as his urban millennial support base doesn't look up from their phones long enough to see what he's really up to.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Lumber on February 17, 2019, 13:29:48
Ok I'm a little confused by a lot of what I'm reading online.

For example:

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

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

and the biggest one is:

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

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

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

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

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

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ballz on February 17, 2019, 13:44:11
Maybe I'm just not reading into the whole affair deeply enough, but I haven't seen any comments at all, especially not from the Prime Minister, that are in any way condescending, racist, sexist, or otherwise damaging to her character and reputation.

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

I haven't seen anything racist. The stuff about how she was difficult to get along with and the like are what's being construed as sexist. Disagreeableness is actually a predictor of success in the workplace, but often when women are disagreeable they are marked as contrary, bitchy, etc... so it's a bit of a double-standard that's been identified by third-wave feminism, one of the few things third-wave feminism has identified that I actually agree with.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 17, 2019, 19:58:13
Summary:

NP View: Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin coverups are more disturbing than the alleged crimes (https://nationalpost.com/opinion/np-view-trudeaus-snc-lavalin-coverups-are-more-disturbing-than-the-alleged-crimes)
- 15 Feb 19
    It's a truism that it's not the crime but the coverup that typically does a government in. Maybe. But if this is a coverup, it is almost criminally incompetent

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

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


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

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

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

Whoops.

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

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

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

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

- mod edit to add link -
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Lumber on February 17, 2019, 22:41:45
Ok... I don't often believe things are ever as nefarious as people claim them to be, but at least I can see how people can make the claim; that is, I can see the path they are following to connect all the dots, I just disagree with their ultimate conclusion.

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

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

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

Second,

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

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

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

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

Quote
PM sees this whole SNC-Lavalin affair being bad for Canada's economy in general, bad for Quebec's economy in particular, and bad for the Liberal party in Quebec from a political perspective.

PM calls in the Attorney General, asks her something along the lines of "hey is there any way we could make this hurt less? any legal way to avoid as much damage as possible"?

Attorney General replies something like "unfortunately no, at this point we have to let things run their course, however painful that may be. Also, I have to advise you that merely asking me this question could be construed as an unethical attempt to use political power to interfere affect the rule of law. I don't believe that is what you actually did, but some could see it that way."

PM replies, "Oh crap, I didn't mean it like that. I'm not a lawyer and I'm really young and naive, so I really just wanted your expert opinion on this matter and to see if there was any other options at all. Thanks for your help, and I'll try and be more careful next time."

Attorney General replies, "No prob, JT" <fist bump>.

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

Now, can the news outlets stop talking about this all freaking day, at least until they can provide some actual and verifiable claims?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on February 17, 2019, 22:50:17
First off, what was actually said, and by who, about the PM "pressuring former justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to quietly nudge prosecutors toward giving Quebec-based......[sniped]".

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

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

If there was nothing to the allegations, JWR wouldn't need to resign, would be able to speak freely, and wouldn't needed to have hired a former Supreme Court Justice to advise her on what she legally can say to defend herself.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 17, 2019, 22:50:39
Your scenario lumber does not fit why she was demoted, hasn’t said a word yet about it, why JT hasn’t waived privilege if it was that simple nor why she suddenly resigned as VAC minister.

Also,the various scenarios and changing stories don’t help perception.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 18, 2019, 00:06:24
Add Penny Colennette (writing in the Star) to the list of the Old Guard that is less than impressed with the situation in which Trudeau finds himself.

I don't see much sign of anybody riding to the rescue.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Lumber on February 18, 2019, 00:44:04
Your scenario lumber does not fit why she was demoted, hasn’t said a word yet about it, why JT hasn’t waived privilege if it was that simple nor why she suddenly resigned as VAC minister.

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

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

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

For the refusal to waive privilege, same as above.

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

Of course, this is all just conjecture. More then likely there is something untoward going on. Im just not convinced that's is nefarious cronnism or corruption, and I certainly still can't see how people are so confidently connecting the dots, when there are very very few dots.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ballz on February 18, 2019, 01:25:16
How verifiable are these claims? Who actually said it? What are the sources? I've seen jack crap besides this one line over and over again.

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

You can call it "FAKE NEWS," I guess... but the journalist who reported it has a pretty credible history. It's not uncommon for "unnamed" sources to be used in legit journalism, as no one would have any insider information if they couldn't be trusted not to give the actual source of the info up. Note that "unnamed" and "anonymous" are two very, very different things.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 18, 2019, 11:11:28
The Globe & Mail reported it, based on unnamed sources.

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

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

Hypocrisy is quite the circle...

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

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 18, 2019, 11:16:44
She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons. It's all conjecture that it was because she wouldn't play Liberal hard ball.

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

For the refusal to waive privilege, same as above.

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

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

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

If it isn't that bad then they dropped the ball on how to handle this.  Someone pointed it out that the cover up is worse than the crime.  They are not doing themselves any favours at all.   
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 18, 2019, 12:24:50
>For all I know, this is how it went down:

Ah.  One of those harmless "'I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go" moments.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 18, 2019, 13:08:18
She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons.

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

Face facts. Always face facts, even if they're undesirable, inconvenient, or lead to unlikable conclusions about other things we hold dear. Any position not built on a premise of fact is going to be wobbly.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 18, 2019, 13:15:53
Face facts.

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

Justice has an overarching effect on ALL Canadians.

As you said, not even in the same league. 

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Journeyman on February 18, 2019, 13:29:19
Face facts. Always face facts, even if they're undesirable, inconvenient, or lead to unlikable conclusions about other things we hold dear. Any position not built on a premise of fact is going to be wobbly.
You do  know that this is a Politics thread, right?   :whistle:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Old Sweat on February 18, 2019, 15:16:30
Breaking news: Gerald Butts has resigned, but denies he did anything wrong.

Hope the bus tires don't leave too many tread marks on him.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 18, 2019, 15:42:25
Breaking news: Gerald Butts has resigned, but denies he did anything wrong.

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

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

I, for one, look forward to the next three days of political 'butts' jokes, because at heart I am still a juvenile.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 18, 2019, 15:44:37

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

Sigh.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on February 18, 2019, 16:21:32
She wasn't demoted, she was moved to an equally (IMHO) important and respectable cabinet position, and it may have been for any number of reasons. It's all conjecture that it was because she wouldn't play Liberal hard ball.

In Canada, even the Minister of Sport and Persons with Disabilities had more status than Veterans’ Affairs. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Colin P on February 18, 2019, 16:46:43
He was 'senior political advisor'. So given the recent missteps, either his advice was not trusted, or it was trusted and it was garbage advice. Given that we have here is indicative of an 'oops' versus an 'I told you so", it looks like a spot has been found for him under the bus.

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

Besides being JT close friend, he also appears to have been the "PMO" basically running the show. Likely it was a lot of his "smart ideas" that got them into this mess. These people are often to smart for their own good and won't take the clear path, but will try to game the system because they believe they are inherently smarter than us.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 18, 2019, 16:49:40
This was posted 5 hours ago, just before Butts resigned.

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

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

Editor’s note: The opinions in this article are the author’s, as published by our content partner, and do not necessarily represent the views of MSN or Microsoft. Andrew MacDougall is a London-based columnist, commentator and consultant at Trafalgar Strategy. He was formerly director of communications to Stephen Harper.

When ace reporter Bob Fife rings you at 9:30 in the morning to get a comment for an exclusive in the next day’s paper it’s time to cancel your plans. Believe me, I know from experience. It means something big— something painful—is in the offing. And while I’m not privy to the PMO discussion following Fife’s Feb. 6 call, I can say the carefully-crafted response which appeared in the Globe and Mail’s exclusive the next morning did nothing to kill the story. Au contraire, it has produced a series of shifting explanations over subsequent days for something Trudeau’s office insists never even happened.

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

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

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

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

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

But you didn’t do that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It will make that Feb. 6 phone call from Bob Fife feel like a picnic.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 20, 2019, 20:10:03
They are burying themselves deeper daily. They'll be looking for something big and controversial, that doesn't do a lot of damage to their base, to knock this off the table.

Release of the new gun laws would likely do it.

Probably not:

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 20, 2019, 20:40:41
The importance of capitalization:

Gerald Butts's resignation letter


Quote
I have resigned as Principal Secretary to The Right Honourable Justin Trudeau, PC, MP, Prime Minister of Canada. He has accepted my resignation.

Recently, anonymous sources have alleged that I pressured the former Attorney General, The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, to assist SNC-Lavalin with being considered for a deferred prosecution agreement. I categorically deny the accusation that I or anyone else in his office pressured Ms. Wilson-Raybould. We honoured the unique role of the Attorney General. At all times, I and those around me acted with integrity and a singular focus on the best interests of all Canadians.

The Prime Minister of Canada’s Office is much larger and more important than any of its staff. I have served it to the best of my abilities, and I have at all times given the Prime Minister free and unfettered advice. I have served the public interest, not the interests of any individual or any narrow private interest of any kind, at any time. Life is full of uncertainties, but I am absolutely certain of that.

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

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

Here was me thinking that the person elected to the office of Prime Minister hired people in the Prime Minister's Office to do his or her bidding.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 20, 2019, 20:50:27
https://globalnews.ca/news/4973581/trudeau-government-leaks-support-snc-lavalin-wilson-raybould-poll/

February 19, 2019 5:00 am

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

By David Akin   

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

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

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

By Kristy Kirkup, The Canadian Press - Feb 20 2019

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

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

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

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

Feb 19, 2019 The Canadian Press

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

<snip>

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

<snip>

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

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

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

Why now? Gerald Butts’ departure fuels speculation

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

February 18, 2019 9:55 PM EST

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

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

<snip>

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

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

<snip>

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

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

<snip>

It’s a daunting tally of challenges the Liberals face as they gear up for the election that’s just eight months away. And Trudeau must now confront it without the man rightly or wrongly considered his Svengali. All over something the prime minister and his friend insist never happened.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Tcm621 on February 20, 2019, 21:07:01
The inference that I take from the letter is that Gerald Butts's loyalty is to the PMO - the Prime Minister's Office - and not to the office of the Prime Minister.

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

I think you will find that Gerald Butts' loyalty is to Trudeau. Trudeau has called him "a best friend" and they have been friends since college. He is rare in that is loyalty is to JT the person rather than JT the PM or leader of the Liberal Party. While, I think this whole business is just more shady Liberal crap, I can't fault Butts for falling on his sword to help a friend. I would do it but I would do it if I was JT as well. I've never been PM but I have taken the heat for my subordinates f*@k ups enough times, you know like a leader is supposed to.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 21, 2019, 11:50:31
The latest (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-jody-wilson-raybould-tells-cabinet-why-she-would-not-intervene-in-snc/), if you have a subscription to the Globe online ...
Quote
Wilson-Raybould told cabinet SNC-Lavalin pressure was improper

Former attorney-general voiced concerns in Tuesday meeting about officials pressing her to order a settlement; speaking in the House of Commons, she hoped to have solicitor-client privilege waived so she could ‘speak my truth’ ...
:pop:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Furniture on February 21, 2019, 11:52:43
It may cost them seats in Ontario as well, where they just tossed a provincial government that was seen as corrupt and wasteful. The CPC have already showed us that it's possible to get a majority without strong support in Quebec so long as you hold the West and Ontario.

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

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

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

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

<snip>

Liberals hurting in Quebec, but mostly Ontario

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

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

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

Both Ipsos and Léger recorded slides for the Liberals in Ontario sizeable enough to be statistically significant.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 21, 2019, 12:23:41
Interesting and highly prophetic study: http://www.ontariocourts.ca/coa/en/ps/publications/attorney_general_prosecution_function.htm
<snip>
"The most important of these constitutional conventions is that although the Attorney General is a cabinet minister, he or she acts independently of the cabinet in the exercise of the prosecution function. This convention is now so firmly entrenched in the Canadian political system that any deviation would likely lead to the resignation of the Attorney General or would, at the very least, spark a constitutional crisis. [19] The resignation of the Attorney General would expose any attempted interference by the premier or the cabinet both to the public and especially to the press, and would further entrench the convention of institutional independence. As Edwards said:

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

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

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

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 21, 2019, 17:43:42
And this from Canada's top civil servant/bureaucrat (source (https://twitter.com/rachaiello/status/1098641596566904832)), speaking to the HoC justice committee today ...
:pop:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 21, 2019, 18:15:40
Let’s see what she does now. I’m especially interested to know why Trudeau claims privilege, then cabinet confidence.  On CTV, Mr. Mulcair states that Clerk PCO was sent in “on a mission.”  If that mission was to pop smoke, he sent up a flare instead.

And how does this guy get off so easy with trying to change the subject to “assassination” and “someone’s going to get shot”.  The man is a bureaucratic version of an ND.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 21, 2019, 19:04:17
Top civil servant slams SNC-Lavalin media report as erroneous, 'defamatory'

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

And yet they did.

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

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

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

But that meeting wouldn’t be pressure would it?

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

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

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

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

But that wouldn’t be pressure, would it?

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

Trudeau though says nothing inappropriate happened.

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

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

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

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

Did they speak with Wilson-Raybould?

If so, what did they say?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

<snip>

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

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

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

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

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

"It has not, to my knowledge, been authoritatively resolved."
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on February 22, 2019, 01:55:10
So let me sum it up if I can:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of morons does Wernick think Canadians are?

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

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Furniture on February 22, 2019, 07:12:28
So let me sum it up if I can:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What kind of morons does Wernick think Canadians are?

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

 :cheers:

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

The only thing I disagree with is the highlighted part, the federal public service was under attack by the CPC when they were in power. It seems quite natural that a very senior public servant would take sides with the party that doesn't represent a threat to the public service. Not to say it's appropriate, but it really isn't surprising to me.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 22, 2019, 08:07:47
Yes, nice summary FJAG.

However, just a few points:

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

As for Mr. Wernick, what I found most amazing is his claim of not liking the current state of governance. I agree with him but probably in the opposite direction. He is probably talking about politicians trying to tell him how to do his job and wants it to stop. I on the other hand think the lack of governance is the abdication of Parliament of its duty to keep the government in check,i.e. elected officials (ministers) and the civil service, so they don't go overboard with stupid pet projects using MY money.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Infanteer on February 22, 2019, 08:54:33
I on the other hand think the lack of governance is the abdication of Parliament of its duty to keep the government in check,i.e. elected officials (ministers) and the civil service, so they don't go overboard with stupid pet projects using MY money.

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

One can't help think that if this was Australia, there would have been a Prime Ministerial handover or two by now.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Half Full on February 22, 2019, 09:23:48

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


It is more than just a conversation between the PM, Butts, the Clerk and AG...let's call it what it is...an implied order...I learned the effects of these kind of orders that seem innocuous at first when I was XO Sea Training.  I remember sitting in the wardroom and just mentioning to the supply officer that the other ship that we were on had Coke Zero...but their ship did not.  I also mentioned that it was too bad they hadn't arranged to have some sent over during our upcoming RAS (in about 1 hr). So now advance 3hrs, after the RAS, and low and behold there is Coke Zero in the Wardroom...to which I was very grateful...however the Sea Training supply Officer was pissed!  He pulled me aside and told me that he had spent the last 2 weeks getting the supply department to think ahead and put through the proper request/paper work prior to transferring any material between ships, and that my demand..although not official, with my position of authority, the ship's SYO felt that he needed to break some rules and get it done no matter what, so he simply bypassed all the official lines and called directly over to the other ship's SYO to get it done.  Since that point I have been very careful with what I say around junior members so that they don't think that I want them to break the rules to make something happen just because I wish it were so.  So I can very much see how the AG may have felt pressure from this implied order from the PM and crowd.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 22, 2019, 09:46:34
Oldgateboatdriver
Quote
First of all, SNC couldn't get or discuss remediation with the DPP before the law was amended

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

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

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

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

Meanwhile, projects closing, companies leaving in AB, no pipeline as the Liberals try to stack, the Titanic deck chairs, on the corrupt SNC.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on February 22, 2019, 11:00:55
Just a few quick rejoinders to the above.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 :cheers:

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 22, 2019, 11:15:38
It is becoming very clear that the PMO does not know how to manage a crisis.

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

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

I suspect the PMO is going to have many similar issues (no matter how outlandish or unsubstantiated they may seem) now with all of this coming to light.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 22, 2019, 11:16:29
Quote
"Those are the words that lead to assassination," he said. "I'm worried that somebody's going to get shot this year during the political campaign."

Nice bit of fear mongering and anti-firearms plug there.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 22, 2019, 11:48:31
It is more than just a conversation between the PM, Butts, the Clerk and AG...let's call it what it is...an implied order...I learned the effects of these kind of orders that seem innocuous at first when I was XO Sea Training.  I remember sitting in the wardroom and just mentioning to the supply officer that the other ship that we were on had Coke Zero...but their ship did not.  I also mentioned that it was too bad they hadn't arranged to have some sent over during our upcoming RAS (in about 1 hr). So now advance 3hrs, after the RAS, and low and behold there is Coke Zero in the Wardroom...to which I was very grateful...however the Sea Training supply Officer was pissed!  He pulled me aside and told me that he had spent the last 2 weeks getting the supply department to think ahead and put through the proper request/paper work prior to transferring any material between ships, and that my demand..although not official, with my position of authority, the ship's SYO felt that he needed to break some rules and get it done no matter what, so he simply bypassed all the official lines and called directly over to the other ship's SYO to get it done.  Since that point I have been very careful with what I say around junior members so that they don't think that I want them to break the rules to make something happen just because I wish it were so.  So I can very much see how the AG may have felt pressure from this implied order from the PM and crowd.

"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 22, 2019, 11:50:07
It sounds like that was what was starting to happen - a caucus revolt.

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

Not just the Aussies, Infanteer.

Theresa May is being whipsawed by her parliament and her party just now. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Lumber on February 22, 2019, 12:07:46
Nice bit of fear mongering and anti-firearms plug there.

I took that as an unfortunate slip of the tongue in the face of frustration. I don't think it was a carefully embedded soundbite. It sounds really stupid in the headlines.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on February 22, 2019, 12:13:50
I took that as an unfortunate slip of the tongue in the face of frustration. I don't think it was a carefully embedded soundbite. It sounds really stupid in the headlines.
Next thing you know there will be soldiers. With guns. On our streets.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 22, 2019, 12:16:20
I took that as an unfortunate slip of the tongue in the face of frustration. I don't think it was a carefully embedded soundbite. It sounds really stupid in the headlines.

Really stupid indeed. There's been a whopping 7 assassinations in Canada in the last 150 years (of which it looks like only 3 have been politicians). More people have died from hockey. As far as a slip of the tongue goes it's quite the suggestion to accidentally make.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on February 22, 2019, 12:19:51
Really stupid indeed. There's been a whopping 7 assassinations in Canada in the last 150 years (of which it looks like only 3 have been politicians). More people have died from hockey. As far as a slip of the tongue goes it's quite the suggestion to accidentally make.

Sometime it is appropriate to attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: MarkOttawa on February 22, 2019, 16:17:49
“Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest!”
https://www.historic-uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/Thomas-Becket/

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DiWQQS9V4AA_US3.jpg)

Mark
Ottawa
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 22, 2019, 16:34:41
>"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

Despite not taking an undergraduate degree in humanities, I'd guess I've read that and read about it 20 or 30 times in my lifetime, the first probably being while in high school.  Who are all these reportedly highly intelligent and highly educated people who apparently failed to understand the lesson?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on February 22, 2019, 20:54:32
A good article from David Moscrop at McLean's:

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

by David Moscrop Feb 22, 2019

While much of the country is going about its day-to-day business, the SNC-Lavalin/Jody Wilson-Raybould affair has overtaken Ottawa and the front pages of newspapers throughout Canada. A complicated matter of ethics and law, of dates and times and personalities, of partisan games and media speculation, the knotty issue has become a matter in the public interest that must be unraveled as soon as possible. To that end, the House of Commons Committee on Justice and Human Rights is investigating the government’s consideration of a deferred prosecution agreement for the engineering firm.

On Thursday, the committee called Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick—the nation’s top bureaucrat, deputy minister to the prime minister, and secretary to the cabinet—to testify about who said what to whom about SNC-Lavalin, when they said it, and why. That makes sense. Wernick is a longtime, respected public servant whose time in government stretches back decades and includes service under Liberal and Conservative prime ministers. And as the chief of the Privy Council Office, which acts as the civil service support organization for the prime minister and cabinet, he would have been a part of discussions about what the attorney general can and cannot do in such matters as a deferred prosecution agreement and, equally, what Trudeau and his office can and cannot ask her to do. So far, nothing to see here.

In the 4th century AD, Aristotle talked about phronesis. It means wisdom, more or less. But the ancient Greek philosopher built out the concept in a particular way, casting it as what we call practical wisdom, or doing the right thing, the right way, at the right time, for the right reasons. You might say that practical wisdom is concerned with how to act in good ways. It’s a useful concept and one we’d do well to apply in our personal and professional lives as much as possible. In fact, the health of our democratic institutions and the public sphere might depend on it.

Wernick’s testimony included references to extreme partisanship, the dangers of shouting treason and incitation to violence, and the decline of democratic institutions at home and abroad. He even worried aloud that someone might be shot as aggravating political rhetoric pierces our civic discourse. He’s not wrong. Nor is he a partisan, as some are suggesting, despite unnecessary and over-the-top praise for the current government. Moreover, it seems that his point is that these concerns may be related to the SNC-Lavalin affair through the cynical and hyperbolic politicization of the matter. But here’s where things turn.

To the extent that Canadians are even aware of Wernick and the position of clerk of the Privy Council, they tend to think that the duties of that office should be carried out quietly and without great drama. Ditto for other officials and public servants. Thankfully, in Canada, the public service is professional and it is typically non-partisan. It’s also world-class. But if public servants or officials are in the news, then there’s probably something wrong. The consensus seems to be that we ought to let politicians grandstand, to let members of Parliament be the story, to let the folks we vote for act as our pace cars or guides, and—finally—to let elected representatives be held accountable. Wernick’s testimony seemed to violate that expectation at very much the wrong time, thus adding fuel to what’s already a raging national dumpster fire.

...

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

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

Quote
Colby Cosh: Michael Wernick spewed drivel while taking us all for fools
He made a creepy attempt to persuade Canadians that if they doubt our institutions of government it is them, and not said government, that must be the problem

Like Michael Wernick, the clerk of the Privy Council, I am a strong believer in the traditions and the strength of our public service. I think, for example, that most of the persons who have occupied his position as the country’s senior mandarin are intelligent, sincere and thoughtful people. It is positively unprecedented for one to appear before a committee of the House of Commons spewing gallons of drivel and frightened non sequiturs, as Wernick did on Thursday, and I would encourage the Canadian public to regard it as a sad anomaly — the sort of personal spectacle from which we, in time, choose to politely avert our eyes. Truly, the ordinary state of our system of government is relative serenity, managed by rational, functioning minds.

Wernick was called upon to testify to the sequence of events leading to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s startling removal from the department of justice, and he did so, confirming that he had participated in reminding her that recent changes to the law allowed for alternatives to prosecuting the Quebec engineering giant SNC-Lavalin. He explicitly confirmed that he had approached her as a representative of the prime minister and “a lot of her colleagues” in cabinet, warning of economic chaos. He even asserted that “I am quite sure the minister felt pressured to get it right.”

He sees nothing improper in any of this, but he also, perhaps sensing possible weaknesses in this position, proposes that the former attorney general ought to have consulted the ethics commissioner if she felt there was a problem. Well, his call to Wilson-Raybould took place on Dec. 19: she was bounced 26 days later, with official Ottawa still hibernating. So this is certainly information worth having as we discuss her fate, the prime minister’s subsequent reassuring boast that her continued presence at Veterans Affairs “spoke for itself,” and her immediate resignation from cabinet.

...

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

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 22, 2019, 21:58:20
>"Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?"

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

Pale and stale.  We don't do that anymore.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 23, 2019, 10:46:41
Personally, when I hear the sentence "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest", I can't help but recall only a Blackadder episode.

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

 ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on February 23, 2019, 16:36:59
Another good article outlining the sequence of events from McLean's

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

Since its outset, l’affair SNL-Lavalin has been framed as a “he said, she said.” More accurately, the messy scandal arising from allegations that the PMO pressured then-justice minister and attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to give a prosecutorial break to the powerful Quebec company has been a “he, he, he-said,” while “she” consults with her lawyer about how much she can say.  We’ll learn the answer to that next week when Wilson-Raybould speaks before the House justice committee.

Even before her testimony, however, an eerily familiar tale has unfolded, the last chapter in the spell-binding spiel from Michael Wernick, clerk of the Privy Council, this week before the justice committee. And that’s the spectre of powerful men not used to hearing “No,” not willing to accept “No,” doggedly pushing for a “Yes” from the person who ostensibly determines consent, then gaslighting her when they don’t hear it.

Through it all a question emerges: How many times did Jody Wilson Raybould need to say “No” before she was heard?
...

As for “How many times did Jody Wilson Raybould need to say ‘No?’ before being heard?” It’s a trick question. The correct answer: Zero.

Full article here: https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-many-times-did-jody-wilson-raybould-need-to-say-no/ (https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/how-many-times-did-jody-wilson-raybould-need-to-say-no/)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 25, 2019, 18:18:45
How many employees does SNC actual have? I am sure they sub contract most everything to excavation, steel fabricators, electricial etc contractors as does ever engineering firm.

The Liberals changed the law once to benefit Liberal contributor SNC. Again?

https://canadanewsmedia.ca/2019/02/24/ottawas-review-of-integrity-regime-rules-opens-door-for-snc-lavalin-the-globe-and-mail/

Ottawa's review of Integrity Regime rules opens door for SNC-Lavalin – The Globe and Mail - 24 Feb 19

The Trudeau government is considering changes to ethical procurement rules that stipulate how long a company can be banned from bidding on federal contracts, a revision of policy that one expert says could offer Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin another means of coping with the fraud and corruption charges it faces. SNC-Lavalin, the Quebec engineering giant at the centre of the Wilson-Raybould affair, faces the charges stemming from an RCMP investigation into its business dealings in Libya. If convicted, it could be banned from bidding on federal contracts for 10 years.

Public Services and Procurement Canada is proposing granting itself more flexibility in deciding how long a company is banned from bidding when convicted.

SNC-Lavalin has been seeking a negotiated settlement in which a company admits wrongdoing and pays a fine, but avoids a trial. Last September, however, the federal director of public prosecutions rejected the request and informed the company the prosecution would continue. Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office have denied putting inappropriate pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould when she was justice minister and attorney-general on the case. In the ensuing fallout, she resigned from cabinet and Gerald Butts, principal secretary in the Prime Minister’s Office, stepped down. Ethics Commissioner Mario Dion has launched an inquiry into the matter.

Even if SNC-Lavalin is convicted, a rewrite underway at Public Services could eliminate a one-size-fits-all punishment period for companies found guilty of offences that run afoul of the federal Integrity Regime. This is a set of rules to address how to treat companies convicted of offences such as corruption, bribery, bid-rigging and money laundering, rules that have evolved over the past decade to ensure Canada “does business only with ethical suppliers,” according to Public Services’ website. Public Services held a 33-day public consultation last fall on a proposed new “ineligibility and suspension policy” that would leave it to officials in the department to set the ban period.

These proposed new rules say the Registrar of Ineligibility and Suspension at Public Services will decide what length of suspension applies, taking into account “the seriousness of the conduct … balanced against the steps taken by the [company] to ensure that similar conduct does not recur.” Other factors to be considered include the extent to which senior management at the company were involved in the offences for which the firm was convicted; whether the company is a repeat offender; the steps the firm has taken to address the wrongdoing; and whether it has implemented remedial measures.The revised policy circulated for consultation by Ottawa included a statement saying the department expected this would take effect “in early 2019.”

A Public Services spokesman this past weekend said the department is still reviewing what it heard from Canadians. “We have consulted on amendments to the current policy, one of which would give flexibility in suspension decisions,” Charles Drouin, a spokesman for Public Services said. “We are currently analyzing feedback received during the consultation.” Public Services could not immediately answer whether this revised policy – that has yet to be approved – could be of help to SNC-Lavalin.

Timothy Cullen, an Ottawa-based lawyer at McMillan, said the revised policy could be applied to SNC-Lavalin if it is convicted on the charges it faces. “Under the new policy, whenever it takes effect … yes, it is quite possible that under the new policy they could receive lesser or no suspension,” he said, adding it’s not yet known how the department will wield this policy. Mr. Cullen said the department would also take into account the conduct of SNC-Lavalin since the charges were laid and its co-operation with authorities and other factors. SNC-Lavalin could not be reached Sunday for comment on this proposed procurement policy revision.

The Montreal firm faces one count of corruption under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and one count of fraud under the Criminal Code. It’s alleged SNC paid millions of dollars in bribes to public officials in Libya between 2001 and 2011 to secure government contracts. The engineering company says executives who were responsible for the wrongdoing have left the company, and it has reformed ethics and compliance rules. The list of companies that currently face procurement bans by Ottawa is very small – three firms – and includes no major companies.

Opposition MPs are urging the House of Commons justice committee to call Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s former chief of staff Jessica Prince to testify about a key meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s top advisers. The Prime Minister’s Office confirmed on Saturday that chief of staff Katie Telford and Mr. Butts met Dec. 18 with Ms. Prince, who was Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff at the time, says it appears pressure was also exerted on her staff. “It now seems that [Ms. Prince] also has been subject to perhaps inordinate pressure by getting her to work on Jody so this may be more indication of the level of pressure on Jody,” NDP MP Murray Rankin said of Ms. Prince. Michael Wernick, the Privy Council Clerk, told the House of Commons justice committee last Thursday that the Dec. 18 meeting with Ms. Prince was one of three conversations that he predicts the former justice minister has concerns about.


All of these conversations took place after Kathleen Roussel, the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada, had already informed SNC-Lavalin on Sept. 4 that she would not negotiate a settlement and would instead proceed with prosecution. Mr. Wernick confirmed in testimony last week that Ms. Wilson-Raybould was unwilling to negotiate an out-of-court settlement with SNC-Lavalin despite repeated efforts by Mr. Trudeau and other senior officials to revisit the question of the company’s pending criminal prosecution on fraud and corruption charges. He said the former justice minister and attorney-general was warned several times about the economic consequences of a criminal conviction of SNC-Lavalin. He denied, however, that she was subjected to “inappropriate pressure” to shelve the prosecution.

Ms. Prince accompanied Ms. Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs in Jan. 14 when she was demoted and lost the plum post of justice minister in a cabinet shuffle. Normally, the chief of staff remains behind when their minister is shuffled – to provide continuity. Ms. Prince, however, was replaced as chief of staff to new Justice Minister and Montreal MP David Lametti by Rachel Doran. Ms. Doran had worked in the Prime Minister’s Office as a policy adviser and was part of the brain trust of previous Ontario Liberal governments that included Mr. Butts and Ms. Telford.

Mr. Butts, one of Mr. Trudeau’s closest friends and most trusted adviser, suddenly resigned Feb. 18, while denying allegations that officials in the Prime Minister’s Office applied political pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould to settle criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould is expected to testify to the justice committee at 8:45 a.m. on Tuesday. She retained former Supreme Court of Canada justice Thomas Cromwell to advise her on what she can say without violating solicitor-client privilege.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on February 25, 2019, 18:48:36
How many employees does SNC actual have? I am sure they sub contract most everything to excavation, steel fabricators, electrical etc contractors as does ever engineering firm.

Newspapers quote 50k employees in 160 countries.  ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin#cite_note-CBC_20120430-2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin#cite_note-CBC_20120430-2) )

They started out doing just engineering, but also do project management and some other functions. For example, they bought the reactor division from AECL and have a CANDU division that markets and builds reactors across the world.  Here at home, they are involved in everything from building management (particularly around a lot of the office buildings here in Ottawa) and delivering the in service support for the RCN minor war vessels /auxiliaries (ie MCDVs, Orcas, and all the barges, tugs and other misc ships).

They are a pretty big multinational, and already took a big hit from being barred by the World Bank from a bunch of construction projects.  There are some allegations of bribes for a Montreal hospital project, so they are doing sketchy stuff here at home as well, but there are still whole sectors with absolutely nothing to do with that portion.

Realistically, if someone else wins the next iteration of MWAV, I'm sure they'll poach a bunch of the current PMs and other staff doing the work, but someone needs to poop or get off the pot here, as there are a bunch of potential contracts that would be affected, and may need some lead time to do some extra steps to set up a competition if the incumbent is suddenly banned . PSPC doesn't consider one or two compliant bids submitted to be a 'competitive process' so may need to do additional industry engagement, or tweak the RFP for extra cost analysis requirements for 'fairness' (insert air quotes here) .
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: YZT580 on February 25, 2019, 19:20:58
by the information that the Globe keeps coming up with I would say that there are bigger leaks than the admiral in Ottawa who are far more damaging to the liberal cause.  Wonder why they aren't being pursued.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 25, 2019, 19:29:36
Should have stated the number of Cdns directly employed by SNC. Companies sub contracted by SNC don't count . These companies can get contracts from other entities.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on February 25, 2019, 21:19:38
Should have stated the number of Cdns directly employed by SNC. Companies sub contracted by SNC don't count . These companies can get contracts from other entities.

Finally found it on their website;  "With 8,762 employees across Canada as of January 8, 2018—we know Canada.  " http://www.snclavalin.com/en/canada (http://www.snclavalin.com/en/canada)

Guessing most of those are on the higher end of the pay scale based on the type of work they do, as they sub out the lower paid stuff.  Still, if that's their employees running prime contracts, ends up touching a lot of other jobs, and transitions between primes never helps the bottom of the totem pole.

In some sectors they seem to be dominating the market, so no real guarantee if they folded the replacement wouldn't be a small Canadian contingent for a larger multinational based elsewhere.

I think most people are okay with the principle of a DPA, and application in this situation, but it's the greasy backdoor nature, the appearance of favouratism for a political donor and the constant lies that are the problem.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on February 25, 2019, 21:53:05
The problem with the "too big to fail; too big to punish" principle is that it does not deter such players from acting improperly. Any fines etc just become a cost of doing doing business in a crooked way that effectively maximizes profits. Personally I think jailing and fining responsible executives is the way to go (what I would really like to see is their exorbitant salaries and bonuses being cut and redistributed to the smaller shareholders.)

 :2c:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 25, 2019, 22:16:49
The PM has waived attorney client privilege.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-waives-attorney-client-privilege-in-snc-lavalin-affair-1.4311440
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on February 25, 2019, 22:19:00
Perhaps requiring SNC to put up a significant “good conduct” bond for each big GoC contract they are awarded, held in trust until that particular contract is fulfilled? ???
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2019, 02:14:34
The PM has waived attorney client privilege.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-waives-attorney-client-privilege-in-snc-lavalin-affair-1.4311440

One wonders what changed his mind.

Another article, now rendered, at least in part, stale by Remius' previously-posted one:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/jody-wilson-raybould-has-trudeau-in-checkmate/

Jody Wilson-Raybould has Trudeau in checkmate

Andrew MacDougall: If the former AG adds credible colour to the story being told by anonymous sources this week, it will be a devastating day for Trudeau

by Andrew MacDougall

Feb 24, 2019

"Is Jody Wilson-Raybould going to burn my government to the ground?"

It's the question Justin Trudeau must surely be asking as his former attorney general and justice minister prepares to "speak her truth" this week at the justice committee on the question of SNC-Lavalin.

If the dribs and drabs of information appearing on the front pages of The Globe and Mail over recent weeks turns out to be accurate foreshadowing, Trudeau might not be able to survive Wilson-Raybould's truth, let alone handle it.

As "did not direct" Wilson-Raybould has morphed into a "vigorous debate" on the question, and then to an admission of "pressure" from the Clerk of the Privy Council, but of the "lawful advocacy" kind, not the 'do as you're told' vintage, Team Trudeau has, to date, succeeded only in lighting itself on fire when it comes to SNC-Lavalin. Now it's time to see if Wilson-Raybould rocks up to committee with the final keg of kerosene.

If you're Trudeau, it's hard to envision an appearance in which Wilson-Raybould doesn't burn everything - Trudeau included - to the ground.  There has been some serious red-on-red action on the nation's front pages in the past few days, and only one side can survive.

Wilson-Raybould and the forces aligned with her have been putting out a narrative of undue pressure on the non-partisan attorney general over the criminal prosecution of SNC, a Liberal-loving Quebec behemoth. And they're making a compelling case.

Despite the independent director of public prosecutions saying 'no' to SNC on Sept. 4 of last year, Trudeau, his office, and the clerk - we now know, after initial denials - continued to revisit the issue with Wilson-Raybould and her office until Dec. 19, i.e. a few short weeks before she was shifted out of the attorney general role. It turns out 'no means no' meant nothing in Trudeaupia, at least when it came to SNC.

<snip>

The one meeting we still don't know much about is the one that might hold the key - and produce the most fireworks at Wilson-Raybould's testimony: the Dec. 18 meeting between the PMO's Gerry Butts and Katie Telford and Jessica Prince, Wilson-Raybould's Chief of Staff. Wernick mentioned it briefly, but the PMO didn't offer up any information on the substance of their conversation when media outlets started asking questions about it. But if their chat wasn't about SNC, it stands to reason the PMO would have said so in order to shut down another unwanted avenue of inquiry.

<snip>

Then again, if Trudeau wanted Wilson-Raybould to speak he would have encouraged her to do so the second Robert Fife's first phone call went into the PMO on the matter. Trudeau has fought Wilson-Raybould every step of the way, likely for a reason.

<snip>

If Wilson-Raybould adds credible colour to the skeleton version of events outlined by the anonymous sources in the Globe it's going to be a brutal day for Trudeau.

And if Wilson-Raybould backs up her claims up with physical evidence (she is reputed to be a copious note-taker), or offers up a witness or two who can offer supportive contemporaneous accounts (hello, Jessica Prince!), it's going to be cataclysmic. Who knows, if the Dec. 18 meeting is indeed the one in which Butts told Wilson-Raybould to take matters up with the Clerk, it would mean Wilson-Raybould was prepared to be leaned on by Wernick over SNC in their call the following day. A penny for a tape of that conversation, anyone?

If it does prove to be the darkest day for Team Trudeau, the Liberals will be forced to contemplate what - and who - comes next. After all, if Gerry Butts, Katie Telford, and Michael Wernick are all telling an independent attorney general to go one way on an open criminal prosecution like SNC, it's hard to paint the picture that it wasn't with Trudeau's knowledge, or at Trudeau's request. Trudeau would find it very hard, if not impossible, to recover.

At best, Trudeau would be hanging by a very thin thread. If Butts had to walk over "pressure" on SNC, what does that mean for Telford should Wilson-Raybould credibly accuse her of the same? And what of Wernick, who told the committee he was sure Wilson-Raybould was feeling the pressure to "get it right" before implying to her that her caucus colleagues were still worried she had it wrong.

The level of nervousness in the PMO right now cannot be overstated, as evidenced by a series of leaks over the weekend designed to evacuate damaging disclosures (disputes over judicial appointments & the admission that Telford met with Justice on SNC). The ground is being prepared for everyone but Trudeau to have to go.

Even then, Trudeau's continued presence in the Prime Minister's Office would be a stretch. People might buy that Trudeau's aides and his deputy minister were a little overzealous in making SNC's case. But they won't buy that anyone other than Trudeau agreed to tuck SNC's preferred legislation into the Liberal budget, or forced Wilson-Raybould out of her post as attorney general, because only the Prime Minister has those powers.

<snip>

Could the cloud cover over sunny ways make for a viable alternative for Liberals, most of whom were elected because of Trudeau's coattails? Or would they shudder at the thought of serving for Canada's version of Frank Underwood?

It remains to be seen. At this point, Trudeau would like an ending as far away from House of Cards as possible. Right now, he'd much rather prefer a Newhart, one where he wakes up and none of this ever happened.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-michael-wernicks-alarmist-words-are-the-politics-of-fear/

Michael Wernick's alarmist words are the politics of fear

Wesley Wark

Special to The Globe and Mail

Published February 25, 2019

The politics of fear has just made an extraordinary appearance on Parliament Hill. The man who gave unexpected voice to it was none other than Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council Office, Ottawa's top bureaucrat. Clerks are not usually public Cassandras, and for good reason.

Mr. Wernick, before he launched into his riveting testimony last Thursday on the SNC-Lavalin affair, told the House of Commons justice committee that he had something else on his mind. That something else was the national security of Canada.

Mr. Wernick was speaking, he said, personally. From his bully pulpit, he told parliamentarians, "I'm deeply concerned about my country right now, its politics, and where it is headed." His statement left many shaking their heads, although Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later signalled his full support.

His catalogue of fears for Canada was extensive and shocking. It included foreign interference in the upcoming election, "the rising tide of incitements to violence," the prospect of political assassination and killings in a election year, the besmirching of public reputations, the "vomitorium" of social-media discourse and a trend toward people losing faith in the governance of Canada.

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2019, 02:48:19
Michelle Rempel in Parliament: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2J5CBbXQKAA
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 26, 2019, 07:43:08
Thanks for posting, Loachman.

Two thoughts come to my mind after watching:

1) If her French is any good at all, we may have found our Canadian "Margaret Thatcher".  :nod:

2) Why don't excellent points made in the house outside of question period ever make it in the news so everyone can see actually good work by M.P.'s?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2019, 11:00:05
My pleasure.

I do not believe that she speaks French.

It might be good for the Country if more of this was shown on the news. Most speeches like these are too long for normal news programmes, though. I prefer to get more detail on the subjects that interest me, and different viewpoints where applicable. One has to look for that, but it's usually available somewhere.

One interesting opinion about Trudeau's sudden reversal about allowing Jody Wilson-Raybould to speak, and I am waiting to see if anybody else picks up on this:

https://www.spencerfernando.com/2019/02/25/report-facing-massive-pressure-trudeau-partially-lifts-solicitor-client-privilege-but-theres-a-huge-exception/

REPORT: Facing Massive Pressure, Trudeau Partially Lifts Solicitor-Client Privilege, But There’s A Huge 'Exception'

Spencer Fernando February 25, 2019

The Trudeau government has issued an order in council, apparently 'waiving' solicitor-client privilege.

Yet, the Trudeau government has not given Jody Wilson-Raybould blanket permission to speak freely, and there are in fact some exceptions to what she is allowed to discus.

Here's the Order in Council (exception noted in bold):

"Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, for the purposes of the hearings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the examination by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner:

    (a) authorizes the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, to disclose to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner any confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada contained in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office; and

    (b) for the purposes of disclosure to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner by the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her, waives, to the extent they apply, solicitor-client privilege and any other relevant duty of confidentiality to the Government of Canada in regards to any information or communications in relation to the exercise of the authority of the Attorney General under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act that were directly discussed with the former Attorney General respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin while she held that office."

    "However, in order to uphold the integrity of any criminal or civil proceedings, this authorization and waiver does not extend to any information or communications between the former Attorney General and the Director of Public Prosecutions concerning SNC-Lavalin."

That’s a big exception.

For example, if a communication took place between a member of the Trudeau PMO, Jody Wilson-Raybould, and the Director of Public Prosecutions at the same time, that information would not be allowed to be discussed. If emails cc'd the Director of Public Prosecutions, that information would not be allowed to be discussed.

As a result, under the guise of 'waiving' privilege, there could be a ton of relevant information that is still blocked from being shared.

Also, why did it take the government two weeks to do this?

What happened in the meantime?

As many have noted, any part of the communications that relate to the current court cases against SNC-Lavalin would not be allowed to be discussed. Of course, that's a huge part of all of this.

But there's also another huge exception:

Note how it keeps referring to 'directly communicated' with the Former Attorney General.

That means, conversations or pressure from Trudeau's PMO staff put onto Jody Wilson-Raybould's staff would not be able to be discussed.

As you can see, all the headlines saying privilege was 'waived' are exactly what the Trudeau Liberals want. They're trying to look like they are allowing her to speak freely and get the truth out, but under the surface, the exceptions are huge.

Make no mistake, there still seems to be a cover-up going on here.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/02/25/justin-trudeau-is-following-instead-of-leading-on-snc-lavalin.html

Justin Trudeau is following instead of leading on SNC-Lavalin

By Susan Delacourt National Columnist

Mon., Feb. 25, 2019

Leadership strife is not at the root of the current troubles plaguing Justin Trudeau’s government.

Or is it? While Jody Wilson-Raybould’s split with the Prime Minister’s Office is not apparently linked to any leadership ambitions, it is abundantly clear now that the former justice minister is driving the bus in this whole saga over SNC-Lavalin.

So while Wilson-Raybould is not the leader or even a would-be leader of her party, she definitely has forced Liberals to follow her — if only to try to anticipate her next move.

On Monday, on the eve of her much-anticipated appearance at the Commons justice committee, Raybould demurred, issuing instead a long letter setting out the conditions under which she intended to speak.

Once again, without uttering a word about the specific grievances, Raybould is forcing everyone around her to react. Last week, she managed to get a hearing from cabinet and caucus - and this of course came after the resignation of Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts.

That’s pretty impressive clout for a rookie politician, new to cabinet and government a little over three years ago and a relative newcomer to the Liberal party.

<snip>

It is striking to see the ways in which Trudeau and his team have just left the slate blank in this whole tale, banking on the conviction that Canadians will give them the benefit of the doubt.

Each day in the Commons, this is basically what Trudeau says - that Canadians know his government is balancing concern for jobs and the law. “Trust us,” he says, while the government fans out, looking for experts and allies to attest to Trudeau’s integrity and hoping that the mess will go away.

Sometimes scandals do blow themselves out; sometimes ministers - or angry presidents - just go away, and governments carry on in their absence.

Nothing in this nearly three-week-old saga over Wilson-Raybould and SNC-Lavalin gives any indication of following that pattern. Trudeau and his government aren’t leading themselves out of the controversy - they’re following and reacting - and Wilson-Raybould is doing the leading.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-the-liberals-already-had-a-plan-b-for-snc-lavalin-so-why-did-they-even-bother-risking-a-scandal?video_autoplay=true

John Ivison: The Liberals already had a plan B for SNC Lavalin, so why did they even bother risking a scandal?

Why did Trudeau apply ‘relentless pressure’ to get Wilson-Raybould to change her mind? The only answer that makes any sense is: because he could

John Ivison   

February 25, 2019 7:49 PM EST

There is no calm for the Liberals as the storm of Jody Wilson-Raybould’s upcoming appearance at the justice committee rumbles towards them.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told the House of Commons Monday he has waived solicitor-client privilege, freeing the former justice minister to talk about “relevant matters” as long as she does not touch on two court cases involving SNC Lavalin.

Meanwhile, Wilson-Raybould said in a letter to the committee chair that she is willing to testify at the “first opportunity,” but wants to make sure there is clarity on possible constraints on what she can say - which suggests it may not be in the next couple of days.

While we don’t know when Wilson-Raybould will appear at committee, we do know she wants 30 minutes for an opening statement. You don’t need half an hour to say that the whole SNC Lavalin saga, and recent allegations of political interference in the justice system, are just a big misunderstanding.

<snip>

On Monday afternoon the committee heard from a former Saskatchewan judge who has gone on record as saying the affair should be investigated by the RCMP. Mary Ellen Turpel-Lafond has said a police investigation is necessary to restore public confidence in the administration of justice, calling the prospect of the attempted influence over a prosecution “not only immoral, (but) illegal.”

The adjudicator of whether Wernick, and perhaps even the prime minister himself, crossed any lines will be the ethics commissioner. If prosecutors agree with Turpel-Lafond, the affair may even end up before the courts and be settled by a judge.

But what perplexes me is why Wernick, the prime minister, and senior advisers Gerald Butts and Katie Telford even discussed a remediation agreement for SNC after Wilson-Raybould made clear she was not disposed to negotiate one, when a perfectly sound plan B was already being worked on.

As my colleague Gabriel Friedman revealed in the Post on Saturday, the department of Public Services and Procurement is finalizing changes to the Ineligibility and Suspension Policy under the Integrity regime. This word salad governs whether corporations convicted of crimes can bid on federal projects.

But the changes being contemplated by the government could reduce the ineligibility period from the automatically mandated 10 years to a debarment at the government’s discretion.

This policy change has been in the works for years — the public was invited to comment back in fall 2017 and the government says the update is being “studied and finalized.” A statement in the revised policy consultation said it is expected to take effect in “early 2019.”

One lawyer Friedman quoted said the debarment could conceivably be reduced to six months, a year or even no ineligibility at all. The proposed changes would widen the scope of offences that could lead to debarment, including human trafficking and environmental violations. The idea is that a one-size-fits-all punishment must be made more flexible if the range of offences is broadened.

SNC chief executive Neil Bruce has said the failure to secure a DPA would likely lead to three to four more years of court battles because the company considers itself not guilty.

But unless I’m missing something, a DPA would require an admission of culpability.

Under the new integrity regime, the company would also have to admit to wrongdoing before throwing itself on the mercy of the Registrar of Ineligibility and Suspension at Public Services. But, in that event, the company could claim mitigating circumstances, because the executives who perpetrated the alleged corruption have left and steps have been taken to ensure there is no repeat of the errant conduct.

So if the government already had an alternative to a deferred prosecution agreement that is expected to become policy in the next month or so, why did the prime minister and his most senior advisors risk flirting with immorality, if not illegality?

As Conservative leader Andrew Scheer asked Monday, if the decision to grant or refuse a deferred prosecution agreement was Wilson-Raybould’s alone - as the prime minister maintains - why did he apply “relentless pressure” to get her to change her mind?

The only answer that makes any sense is: because he could.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Sprinting Thistle on February 26, 2019, 14:03:53
Trudeau is already seeding the clouds stating that that he is "pleased" that JWR will be able to "share her perspectives" at the committee.  The spin developing here is that, yes they met over the SNC case however they both have different perspectives on what was discussed and they have differing views on whether pressure was applied.  This is the same spin they put on the Creston groping allegation in that Trudeau stated in his pseudo-apology that "the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next" - basically the victim is entitled to her opinion of what happened, but its just an opinion.  So, once JWR "shares her perspectives" then the PMO will come out a say "see, it was all just a difference of perspectives". 

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 26, 2019, 14:06:17
Trudeau is already seeding the clouds stating that that he is "pleased" that JWR will be able to "share her perspectives" at the committee.  The spin developing here is that, yes they met over the SNC case however they both have different perspectives on what was discussed and they have differing views on whether pressure was applied.  This is the same spin they put on the Creston groping allegation in that Trudeau stated in his pseudo-apology that "the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next" - basically the victim is entitled to her opinion of what happened, but its just an opinion.  So, once JWR "shares her perspectives" then the PMO will come out a say "see, it was all just a difference of perspectives".

The simple answer to that is :  2 ministers and a PMO principle secretary do not resign over a difference of perspective.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on February 26, 2019, 14:31:30
I think there could have been some softening her up before His Grace decided to allow her to somewhat speak. Good of The Party, team unity sort of thing.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 26, 2019, 14:35:20
I think there could have been some softening her up before His Grace decided to allow her to somewhat speak. Good of The Party, team unity sort of thing.

senate seat or ambassadorship...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 26, 2019, 14:43:47
I think there could have been some softening her up before His Grace decided to allow her to somewhat speak. Good of The Party, team unity sort of thing.

I suspect you're right.  JWR will have received her vetted talking points and have been briefed on the consequences of straying from the script.  Whether she does so is the wild card in the deck.  That will depend on if the talking points are/are not factual.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on February 26, 2019, 15:27:41
senate seat or ambassadorship...

I don't think she seems like the type to care about either of those things. I think if they were trying, maybe some actual changes to the indigenous framework to get real change in there could be tempting, but she seems like she has the integrity to let them burn to the waterline instead of tossing herself under a bus for personal benefit.

Kind of weird to see in a politician, but haven't seen anything to suggest otherwise, and the reports about her 'not working well with others' seem to be more taking a firm position on things, fighting for what she believes in and not being pushed around to keep up political appearances and cronyism.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 26, 2019, 18:49:10
Trudeau is already seeding the clouds stating that that he is "pleased" that JWR will be able to "share her perspectives" at the committee.  The spin developing here is that, yes they met over the SNC case however they both have different perspectives on what was discussed and they have differing views on whether pressure was applied.  This is the same spin they put on the Creston groping allegation in that Trudeau stated in his pseudo-apology that "the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next" - basically the victim is entitled to her opinion of what happened, but its just an opinion.  So, once JWR "shares her perspectives" then the PMO will come out a say "see, it was all just a difference of perspectives".

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-1.5033639

Wilson-Raybould to testify at committee probing SNC-Lavalin affair Wednesday

Former attorney general has been granted broad waiver on cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege

Kathleen Harris CBC News Posted: Feb 26, 2019 10:59 AM ET

Jody Wilson-Raybould has agreed to testify at the Commons justice committee probing the SNC-Lavalin affair Wednesday afternoon, after obtaining a broad waiver that allows her to disclose details of her conversations with government officials about the prosecution of the Montreal-based global engineering and construction company.

The former justice minister and attorney general has been granted an extended, uninterrupted 30-minute period to deliver an opening statement to the committee.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said today he's "pleased" that Wilson-Raybould will be able to "share her perspectives" on the SNC-Lavalin affair.

"It's important that people get an opportunity to testify, or share their point of view, at committee," Trudeau told reporters as he headed into the weekly Liberal cabinet meeting.

"As we said, waiving privilege, waiving cabinet confidentiality is something that we had to take very seriously, but I'm pleased that Ms. Wilson-Raybould is going to be able to share her perspectives."

(Hmmm... Not "Jody", now, like before? And I remain very suspicious about this sudden change of heart. - Loachman)

<snip>

Conservative justice critic and deputy leader Lisa Raitt will press Wilson-Raybould on what happened in various meetings and whether she engaged in any discussions that were, in her opinion, inappropriate. But she said the big unanswered question is what prompted Wilson-Raybould to resign.

"What was it either in what Mr. Lametti said, or in what the prime minister said, that caused her to realize she didn't have the confidence of the cabinet any longer and she had to remove herself from cabinet solidarity?" Raitt said. "Because that's what she did and it's a big deal."

https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/25/wilson-raybould-wants-to-tell-the-full-story/

Wilson-Raybould wants to tell the full story

By Charlie Pinkerton. Published on Feb 25, 2019 5:55pm

<snip>

At Monday’s meeting of the justice committee, Mary Condon, the interim dean of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, and Maxime St-Hilaire, a professor of law at the Université de Sherbrooke, agreed in their discussion with the committee that it is appropriate for the attorney general to discuss with his or her colleagues about potential decisions, but that their opinions should not influence the attorney general’s in specific cases.

On Thursday, Wernick told the justice committee that Wilson-Raybould was never inappropriately pressured by the prime minister or his staff. He also predicted that Wilson-Raybould would mention three separate occasions where she may have been concerned about pressure. This, Wernick described, was pressure to make the right decision (But by whose definition of "right"? And why did the pressure continue after she announced her decision? Was her decision not the "right" one? - Loachman) rather than pressure from PMO staff.

<snip>

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/02/25/pmo-ordered-review-that-spawned-measures-which-could-help-snc-lavalin-memo/#.XHW9PsR7laS


PMO ordered review that spawned measures which could help SNC-Lavalin: memo

By The Canadian Press - Feb 25 2019

OTTAWA - A newly disclosed memo says the Prime Minister's Office ordered public consultations on federal anti-corruption measures - a review that led to two policy moves that could end up helping embattled SNC-Lavalin.

The internal briefing note, released under the Access to Information Act, says the PMO directed Public Service and Procurement Canada to consult the public in 2017 on both the overall integrity regime and the possibility of introducing formal alternatives to prosecuting financial crimes.

Early last year, following the consultation, the government passed legislation to create what is known as a remediation agreement - a means of having a corporation accused of wrongdoing make amends without facing the potentially devastating consequences of a criminal conviction.

As a result of a second thread of the consultation, the government is also proposing to soften the penalty scheme for companies involved in wrongdoing by changing the process for determining how long an offending firm should be barred from getting federal contracts.

SNC-Lavalin, the Montreal-based engineering and construction giant, faces corruption and fraud charges over allegations it resorted to bribery while pursuing business in Libya.

It has pushed unsuccessfully for a remediation agreement, and the Trudeau government has been plunged into controversy over accusations it improperly pressured the former attorney general to make an agreement happen.

http://angusreid.org/snc-lavalin/

Trudeau government’s handling of SNC-Lavalin affair opens seven-point lead for CPC over Liberals

February 26, 2019 - As political watchers across the country await with bated breath testimony from former Attorney General and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, the latest public opinion poll from the non-profit Angus Reid Institute shows the SNC-Lavalin affair taking a toll on the fortunes of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his Liberal government.

While it remains unclear exactly how much - if any - pressure Trudeau and his staff put on Wilson-Raybould not to prosecute the Quebec-based engineering firm for fraud and corruption charges stemming from its business in Libya, most Canadians (66%) say they believe there is a deeper scandal in the Prime Minister’s Office. Moreover, a similar number (63%) say they believe SNC-Lavalin should be fully prosecuted under the criminal code, rather than allowed to negotiate a remediation agreement, as the PMO reportedly would have preferred.

These findings correspond with low marks for Trudeau himself. Fully six-in-ten Canadians (60%) say they have an unfavourable view of the Prime Minister, and a nearly identical 59 per cent say their opinion of him has worsened over the last month or so. While this is driven largely by the negative views of right-of-centre voters, it’s notable that three-in-ten (28%) who would vote for Trudeau’s Liberal Party in an election held tomorrow also say their view of the PM has worsened.

All of this creates a political landscape in which Trudeau’s Liberals would find themselves trailing Andrew Scheer’s Conservative Party of Canada by seven percentage points (38% to 31%) in the event an election were held tomorrow.

(Details and graphs at the link above)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 27, 2019, 08:53:34
Updated version of the last article that I posted:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-1.5033639

Wilson-Raybould says PMO restricting her ability to 'speak freely' at justice committee

Former attorney general has been granted broad waiver on cabinet confidence, solicitor-client privilege

Kathleen Harris CBC News Posted: Feb 26, 2019 10:59 AM ET | Last Updated: 8 hours ago

Jody Wilson-Raybould wrote to the chair of the justice committee Tuesday evening to say that while she will agree to give testimony before MPs on Wednesday, she will not be able to speak freely because of constraints that still exist around what she can and can't talk about.

The former justice minister had obtained a broad waiver from the Prime Minister's Office that allows her to disclose details of her conversations with government officials about the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, a Montreal-based global engineering and construction company.

In an Order in Council (OIC) posted online Monday, the government said Wilson-Raybould - "and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin" - can report to the committee and to the federal ethics commissioner any cabinet confidences "in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office."

But in the letter to Anthony Housefather, Wilson-Raybould said those parameters will not allow her to "speak freely."

"The OIC addresses only my time as attorney general of Canada and therefore does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as minister of veterans affairs and in relation to my resignation from that post or my presentation to cabinet after I had resigned," she said in the letter.

"I mention this simply to alert the committee to the fact that the Order in Council leaves in place whatever restraints there are on my ability to speak freely about matters that occurred after I left the post of attorney general."

<snip>

Conservative justice critic and deputy leader Lisa Raitt will press Wilson-Raybould on what happened in various meetings and whether she engaged in any discussions that were, in her opinion, inappropriate. But she said the big unanswered question is what prompted Wilson-Raybould to resign.

"What was it either in what Mr. Lametti said, or in what the prime minister said, that caused her to realize she didn't have the confidence of the cabinet any longer and she had to remove herself from cabinet solidarity?" Raitt said. "Because that's what she did and it's a big deal."

NDP MP Nathan Cullen said Wilson-Raybould's testimony will be "pivotal" and the committee probe must expand to call on testimony from officials in the PMO, including Trudeau's chief of staff Katie Telford and his former principal secretary Gerry Butts.

"It's a typical scandal. First they deny anything's here, then they admit the thing happened but the thing's not important. Then one by one the accusations become verified, and we need to hear from the principal actors," he said.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 27, 2019, 09:44:48
Oh what a tangled web we weave.... I’m sure you all know the rest of the quote.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on February 27, 2019, 10:04:47
Good journalism work by CBC. Lead with her headline, explain in the first 2 paragraphs with leading language on how she can speak on "broad" topics, only then get to the actual meat of her statement. Definitely not spinning it for the government view at all.... :facepalm:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 27, 2019, 11:17:17
Good journalism work by CBC. Lead with her headline, explain in the first 2 paragraphs with leading language on how she can speak on "broad" topics, only then get to the actual meat of her statement. Definitely not spinning it for the government view at all.... :facepalm:

The CBC definitely doesn't have $675-million reasons to be pro-Liberal  ;)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Halifax Tar on February 27, 2019, 17:24:29
Well JWR is most definatly not pulling any punches.

Can she even stay in the party now ?  Would she be welcome ?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 27, 2019, 17:25:26
Oh man. Anyone who’s at all interested in this, find Mercedes Stephenson’s Twitter page; she’s posting JWR’s testimony in committee in real time. Suffice to say (as I remember I’m employed federally), a bus just got hijacked and is being driven back and forth over someone right now. I’m gobsmacked by her testimony.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Halifax Tar on February 27, 2019, 17:29:07
Where do we go from here ?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 27, 2019, 17:36:46
Where do we go from here ?
Demanding the PMs resignation. Demanding the Minister of Finance resign as well.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ModlrMike on February 27, 2019, 17:37:55
Demanding the PMs resignation. Demanding the Minister of Finance resign as well.

Like that'll ever happen  ::)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on February 27, 2019, 17:39:34
Demanding the PMs resignation. Demanding the Minister of Finance resign as well.

Their egos would never allow it.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 27, 2019, 17:43:29
Then pressure them. Prosecute them if possible.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 27, 2019, 17:56:39
I just watched her presentation, but cannot stick around for the questions. I'm hoping that the whole thing will be posted online somewhere, later.

Two words:

"Powerful".

"Damning".

I cannot see police investigations not being initiated.

I cannot see this government surviving.

It no longer has any shred of legitimacy.

I do not even know what should happen at this point.

http://www.gg.ca/en/role/responsibilities/constitutional-duties

As The Queen’s representative in Canada, the governor general has a number of responsibilities, one of the most important being to ensure that Canada always has a prime minister and a government in place that has the confidence of Parliament.  The governor general’s other constitutional duties include:

 -   swearing into office the prime minister, Cabinet ministers and the chief justice of Canada;
 -   summoning, proroguing and dissolving Parliament;
 -   delivering the Speech from the Throne;
 -   granting Royal Assent to acts of Parliament;
 -   appointing members of the Privy Council, lieutenant governors and certain judges, on the advice of the prime minister; and
 -   signing into effect official documents, such as orders-in-council.

Her Excellency may may be brushing up on her specific terms of reference.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on February 27, 2019, 18:04:03
This testimony makes us sound like a third world dictatorship instead of a G7 nation.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: cavalryman on February 27, 2019, 18:26:21
When they've lost the folks who habitually comment on CBC news items, that can't be a good sign for PMJT and his cabinet...

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-testifies-justice-committee-1.5035219 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/wilson-raybould-testifies-justice-committee-1.5035219)

 :orly:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 27, 2019, 19:30:10
Does anyone else think that for a disinterested civil servant the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, seemed to be pretty party-political partisan in his involvement.

Is it his purview to worry about the Government of the Day getting re-elected?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 27, 2019, 19:41:32
When Lisa Raitt raised the Norman trial, my sense from JWR is that but for privileges she might slice and dice the PMO for that one as well.
 Got to wonder how JT will survive the next few months as leader of the Liberal party.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: BurnDoctor on February 27, 2019, 19:48:41
Sharpen the pitchforks. Dip the torches in pitch.

Oh...and pop popcorn. This is getting good.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 27, 2019, 19:58:35
Sharpen the pitchforks. Dip the torches in pitch.

Oh...and pop popcorn. This is getting good.

From one BurnDoctor to another Burn Doctor ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 27, 2019, 20:21:59
A summation of some views from Quebec.

Going back to this post from February 14, if the PM spins this right in his home province (where he will be speaking this evening) JWR may have just handed the Liberals Québec on a platter in October.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: BurnDoctor on February 27, 2019, 20:24:21
You’re right, unfortunately, Haggis. Ugh.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on February 27, 2019, 20:38:42
I wonder how many serious NDP insiders are tearing their hair out now that Burnaby voters have removed the pretext to replace Singh, at the time when the Liberals are well on their way to being at their weakest since Adscam.  Opportunity missed.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Halifax Tar on February 27, 2019, 20:40:56
As expected Scheer just call for the PM to resign and for the RCMP to open an investigation. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: MilEME09 on February 27, 2019, 20:42:25
Well. Scheer just publically said the PM needs to resign
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 27, 2019, 20:43:16
Plus the Liberals on the Justice Committee defeated a motion to lift the restriction on JWR to speak to events after her resignation, etc, etc.



UPDATE: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau will address reporters tonight at 8pm ET in Montreal, where he is scheduled to meet Liberal volunteers from Outremont's recent byelection.


7 minutes ago
Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer is calling on Justin Trudeau to resign as prime minister, and for the RCMP to open an immediate investigation if not already underway.


2 minutes ago
The text of Scheer's statement:
“Justin Trudeau simply cannot continue to govern this great nation now that Canadians know what he has done. That is why I am calling on Justin Trudeau to resign. Further, the RCMP must immediately open an investigation – if it has not already done so – into the numerous examples of obstruction of justice the former Attorney General detailed in her testimony.
 
“The testimony Canadians have just heard from the former Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould tells the story of a Prime Minister who has lost the moral authority to govern. A Prime Minister who allows his partisan political motivations to overrule his duty to uphold the rule of law. A Prime Minister who doesn’t know where the Liberal Party ends and where the Government of Canada begins. And a Prime Minister who has allowed a systemic culture of corruption to take root in his office and those of his most senior cabinet and public service colleagues.
 
“I listened carefully to the testimony of the former Attorney General, and like Canadians, I was sickened and appalled by her story of inappropriate, and frankly illegal pressure brought to bear on her by the highest officials of Justin Trudeau’s government. All to let a Liberal-connected corporation off the hook on corruption charges.
 
“Before Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, Canadians knew Justin Trudeau had engineered an unwanted, sustained, and co-ordinated attempt to get Ms. Wilson-Raybould to change her mind and stop the criminal trial of SNC-Lavalin. Today, thanks to Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s testimony, we now know just how intense those efforts were: ten meetings and ten phone calls involving eleven senior government officials relentlessly targeting Ms. Wilson-Raybould over a four month period – with the sole objective of bullying her into bending the law to benefit a well-connected corporation.
 
“The details are as shocking as they are corrupt: multiple veiled threats to her job if she didn’t bow to their demands. Urgings to consider the consequences on election results and shareholder value above judicial due process. And reminders from Justin Trudeau to his Attorney General about his own electoral prospects should she allow SNC-Lavalin’s trial to proceed.
 
“As Ms. Wilson-Raybould has so clearly articulated, the people Canadians entrusted to protect the integrity of our very nation were instead only protecting themselves and their friends.
 
“Mr. Trudeau can no longer, in good standing and with a clear conscience, lead this great nation.
 
“Canada should be a country where we are all equal under the law. Where nobody – regardless of wealth, status, or political connections – is above the law. I believe we can be that country again.”
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: YZT580 on February 27, 2019, 20:55:09
I don't think it is possible for JWR to continue in caucus.  It is too bad that her convictions won't allow her to join the PC's but I suspect that we will see a new independent member in the next few days.  But Kudos to her.  It has been a long time since Ottawa has hosted a truly honest politician.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 27, 2019, 20:57:12
I also suspect that the VAdm Norman prosecution will be the next subject JWR is called upon to comment about.  After all, it happened on her watch as AG and, therefore, she can speak publicly now that the PM's waiver OIC is out there.   It would be fascinating to hear what influence she was subjected to as the PM had situated the estimate regarding VAdm Norman's culpability back in February 2018 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-norman-secrets-case-1.4516573). 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 27, 2019, 21:15:00
One of the best bits from JWR's testimony:

Quote
Katie Telford, PM chief of staff, offered to line up friendly media if Wilson-Raybould was worried about how abandoning prosecution of SNC might look. "If Jody is nervous, we would of course line up all kinds of people to write OpEds saying that what she is doing is proper.”
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: mick on February 27, 2019, 21:26:55
I also suspect that the VAdm Norman prosecution will be the next subject JWR is called upon to comment about.  After all, it happened on her watch as AG and, therefore, she can speak publicly now that the PM's waiver OIC is out there.   It would be fascinating to hear what influence she was subjected to as the PM had situated the estimate regarding VAdm Norman's culpability back in February 2018 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-norman-secrets-case-1.4516573).

The Order-in-Council is specific in that it only waives privilege and cabinet confidence in reference to the SNC-Lavalin issue, and only covers her time as AG, and nothing after the cabinet shuffle.

In the same vain, this waiver will not allow her to comment on the Norman prosecution.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 27, 2019, 21:28:14
In case you weren't able to watch/listen to the testimony, here's the opening comments, as shared by the National Post.

Here's also a copy (https://www.scribd.com/document/400675086/Jody-Wilson-Raybould-s-opening-statement-on-the-SNC-Lavalin-controversy) available via scribd.com.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 27, 2019, 21:37:57
I'm not in agreement that there are grounds to investigate a justice system participant. Generally that involves threats of violence or harm or causing fear preventing a person from performing their duty. Nor is it criminal interference, as there was no ongoing investigation.
I do agree with JWR that Parliament ought to consider whether an AG be independent from Cabinet, which in the case of Canada means separating the duties of the justice minister from the AG.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 27, 2019, 22:05:33
There are political models. The UK has a structure that insulates the AG much more than we have. There is still a Lord Chancellor, but the AG is not a full cabinet member. As a result, the political considerations are not front and centre. There are probably other models as well, but what we have would have been broken under a less resolute AG. Just my 0.02.

One more thing: the PCO (Wernick) bringing up Iacabucci ( a former SCC judge) as a threat that he is no “violet” as the lead counsel for SNC probably was the final straw. I think it quite just that she hired her own former SCC judge as her own counsel.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jed on February 27, 2019, 22:14:21
So does anyone have a link to a Liberal or preferably PM reply to today's questioning of JWR or the oppositions call for the PM resignation?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on February 27, 2019, 22:28:38
Wow. Must say I'm a fan.

You can read her opening statement in full here;

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jody-wilson-raybould-opening-statements-1.5035785 (https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/jody-wilson-raybould-opening-statements-1.5035785)

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 27, 2019, 23:26:50
One more thing: the PCO (Wernick) bringing up Iacabucci ( a former SCC judge) as a threat that he is no “violet” as the lead counsel for SNC probably was the final straw ...
Missed that tidbit -- thanks for sharing that.

Just a little reminder of another task he's up to - this from October 2018 (https://www.torys.com/about/news/2018/09/frank-iacobucci-releases-statement) from the law firm Iacobucci works for ...
Quote
We are pleased to announce that in connection with the Government of Canada’s proposed TransMountain pipeline expansion, the Honourable Frank Iacobucci has been appointed to provide advice on the design of the consultation process with Indigenous groups and to oversee that process.

The Honourable Frank Iacobucci has released the following statement in connection with his appointment announced today by the Government of Canada:

“I am honoured to be asked to take on this important role and am excited and eager to begin. How this process is managed is of deep concern to all the parties involved and is profoundly important for the country. I am committed to working diligently to ensure that the Court’s judgment is applied properly and that Indigenous peoples are meaningfully consulted.”
I stand to be corrected if he's no longer doing that job.

That said, whatever would THAT mean for the Honourable learned counsel in this case?  ;)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 27, 2019, 23:52:12
He's probably pissed that Wernick tried that stunt. How can the country be confident that the PMO/PCO hasn't attempted to influence other prosecutions undertaken by the Federal DoJ? We already know that lawyers from the PMO staff met with the Prosecutors in the Norman trial to plan strategy to "engineer the outcome". Did JWR know that? It seems unlikely. Her body language, tone and inflexion turned to ice today when Norman was mentioned, and same when Huawei was mentioned.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 28, 2019, 00:31:47
Somewhat off-topic, but related, from earlier in the day: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWMjh2phAuY

Best comment: "Was he just standing up for jobs for prostitutes? That's how ridiculous it sounded."
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 28, 2019, 00:40:13
I'm expecting  either a PM Trudeau teary-eyed apology about how he messed up and he so so sorry and he learned from his mistakes and he will do better. With more tears.

Or

A simple "she experienced it differently, we dont need an ethics investigation case closed we're moving on".
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 28, 2019, 00:59:09
I'm expecting  either a PM Trudeau teary-eyed apology about how he messed up and he so so sorry and he learned from his mistakes and he will do better. With more tears.

Or

A simple "she experienced it differently, we dont need an ethics investigation case closed we're moving on".

He is, apparently, going with the second of the two COAs that you mentioned. For now, anyway.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 01:44:09
In addition to the PM, the PMO and the Liberals my sense is there are at least two other "institutions" worrying about their reputations.

1.  The press.  - The notion that the PMO can wall-paper the media with op-ed writers and experts is not going down well with the club.  It tends to give credence to all those who believe that the news is something less than it professes.

2.  The Civil Service - Michael Wernick, head of the Civil Service, man responsible for picking, promoting, hiring, firing and assigning civil servants, has clearly demonstrated a party-political preference.  On what grounds does he make his hiring decisions and his assignments?  Is he the only Liberal in the Civil Service?  Are there fellow-travellers that were in place when the Tory government was working with them?

Right or wrong there are questions.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: SeaKingTacco on February 28, 2019, 02:02:56
In addition to the PM, the PMO and the Liberals my sense is there are at least two other "institutions" worrying about their reputations.

1.  The press.  - The notion that the PMO can wall-paper the media with op-ed writers and experts is not going down well with the club.  It tends to give credence to all those who believe that the news is something less than it professes.

2.  The Civil Service - Michael Wernick, head of the Civil Service, man responsible for picking, promoting, hiring, firing and assigning civil servants, has clearly demonstrated a party-political preference.  On what grounds does he make his hiring decisions and his assignments?  Is he the only Liberal in the Civil Service?  Are there fellow-travellers that were in place when the Tory government was working with them?

Right or wrong there are questions.

I noted that the CBC reaction/coverage of JWR was...muted...today. The Cohen testimony in the US seemed to be getting more play.

If the Liberals do not survive this (and I don't think they will), Wernick is done the second another party takes power.

I generally believe civil servants are reasonably non-partisan on the job. That said, i figure there is a metric boatload of soul searching going on in Ottawa and elsewhere about choices made during the last election. And direction to be carried out since the last election.

After disbelief, comes anger. A whole bunch of civil servants could, starting tomorrow, starting dumping data and telling tales of about other ethical breaches they have witnessed or been party to in the past 3 years out of anger at having been lied to or in an effort to get in front of things.

Everything comes out, eventually...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2019, 08:28:14
... If the Liberals do not survive this (and I don't think they will), Wernick is done the second another party takes power ...
.... Is he the only Liberal in the Civil Service?  Are there fellow-travellers that were in place when the Tory government was working with them? ...
Don't forget, though, that he was first appointed into the DM ranks by this guy ...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1003262547301097472/UqUTTE49_400x400.jpg)
... and kept there when he could have EASILY been moved/punted by any PM thinking he wasn't up to the job.

However, if you want to read tea leaves, there's always this @ LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-wernick-81ab7328/) :) - screen capture attached if link doesn't work for you.

...The press.  - The notion that the PMO can wall-paper the media with op-ed writers and experts is not going down well with the club.  It tends to give credence to all those who believe that the news is something less than it professes ...
Well, if you believe that, then how much doubt did you express when a media outlet, one of those "bought" by Team Red, came out with allegations of political meddling in a legal case based on unnamed sources?  A lot of people were happy to forget the Globe's alleged track record of being in the tank for the Liberals, until they published something bashing said Liberals - where were the critiques of those who believe the news is something less than it professes? ;)

Also, do you think this is any different from any other government in power at any level, be they Team Red, Team Blue or Team Orange?

All that said ...
... Everything comes out, eventually...
... Right or wrong there are questions.
:nod:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 28, 2019, 09:09:57
https://torontosun.com/news/national/wilson-raybould-i-was-pushed-got-veiled-threats-on-snc-lavalin/wcm/b468a082-526b-41c6-bc86-92734c44ed44

Wilson-Raybould: I was pushed, got veiled threats on SNC-Lavalin


Wilson-Raybould: I was pushed, got veiled threats on SNC-Lavalin

Canadian Press Published: February 27, 2019

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is reconsidering Jody Wilson-Raybould's future in the Liberal party after his former attorney general accused him, his senior staff and the country's top civil servant of putting her under relentless pressure to interfere in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and refused to say whether she still believes in his leadership.

"I completely disagree with the former attorney general's characterization of events," Trudeau said in Montreal, shortly after Wilson-Raybould concluded four hours of explosive testimony before the House of Commons justice committee. "I strongly maintain, as I have from the beginning, that I and my staff always acted appropriately and professionally."

He said he will review all of Wilson-Raybould's testimony before deciding whether she can remain in the Liberal caucus or seek re-election this fall as a Liberal candidate.

Wilson-Raybould reiterated her intention to remain part of the Liberal team as she exited the committee room, even though she refused during questioning to say whether she still had confidence in the leader of that team.

"I'm not sure how that question is relevant," she said when asked by a Liberal colleague if she still has confidence in the prime minister.

Trudeau 'definitely not in agreement' after Wilson-Raybould details pressure in SNC-Lavalin affair: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=784&v=2gMDW_MYEbc

The political consequences of Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony | At Issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NN5vfYCaQEc


https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-the-unbearable-lightness-of-justin-trudeau


FUREY: The unbearable lightness of Justin Trudeau
Anthony Furey Published: February 27, 2019

How on earth would he spin it? Forget spin. How on earth can he survive this? After watching Jody Wilson-Raybould's calm, composed, lengthy and detailed damning testimony against Justin Trudeau, it was hard to imagine the PM would have anything to say in response besides staring at the cameras like a deer in the headlights.

Yet there he was, not long after the justice committee hearing had wrapped up, waltzing into a media availability in Quebec to celebrate the new Liberal MP elected during the Wednesday byelections.

He was all smiles, and even the occasional smirk, as he swatted aside everything, not a care in the world.

<snip>

But Trudeau didn't seem fazed when he took to the podium Wednesday evening. He admitted he hadn't seen all of her testimony (then why comment on it?!) but had no problem labelling J.W.R. a liar.

"I completely disagree with the former attorney general's characterization of events," Trudeau said, with a smile.

Of course, he'd set us up for this denial. On Tuesday he said it was important for J.W.R. to testify so she could "share her perspective." Not facts. Not, as she put, her truth. But her perspective. And now he says her perspective was the wrong one.

Zero apology, zero regret - instead, he proudly urged Canadians to have faith in the ethics commissioner, who has opened an investigation into this affair. And, yes, that would be the same ethics commissioner who simply doles out fines to the tune of $200 if someone has been found to break a law.

Trudeau says he welcomes that process. (Will he say the same about the RCMP investigation that is no doubt soon to commence?)

Before stepping away from the mic, he got in one of his now regularly occurring digs about the Conservatives "dividing" people, as if that shield would work this time around.

But based on his composure, the look on his face, how he was cockier than usual - it seems Justin Trudeau really does think this will all soon go away.

That's the part, his attitude, that makes this whole saga so hard to bear.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 28, 2019, 09:30:05
Question: Could the current GoC be kicked to the curb if a no confidence motion were to be introduced?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 28, 2019, 09:32:50
That would require enough Liberals to vote in support of the motion for it to pass.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on February 28, 2019, 09:35:49
Question: Could the current GoC be kicked to the curb if a no confidence motion were to be introduced?

Unlikely, the motion would be voted down by the Liberal majority.

I believe that if Her Excellency the Governor General assessed that the Government had lost the confidence of the people, independent of a lower house vote, there could be action taken, but that is unlikely at this point.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on February 28, 2019, 09:50:24
That would require enough Liberals to vote in support of the motion for it to pass.
Even the motion being defeated would be more gas on the fire for the next election. Individual MPs who voted to stay in power would have that thrown in their face on the campaign trail. If such a motion was proposed, I think there would be a lot of sick Liberal MPs who couldnt make the vote that day...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 28, 2019, 10:30:57
How disgustingly corrupt of our government and prime minister.

Good thing the Liberals pre-emptively bought the media.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Furniture on February 28, 2019, 10:44:46
How disgustingly corrupt of our government and prime minister.

Good thing the Liberals pre-emptively bought the media.

To be fair, that media isn't giving them much of a pass on this, I'm actually a bit surprised to see it.

That said, most Canadian's seem more interested in the circus south of the border so maybe this will all go away.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2019, 10:57:57
Good thing the Liberals pre-emptively bought the media.
That would include the "bought" media that brought us the first story starting this thread (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-pmo-pressed-justice-minister-to-abandon-prosecution-of-snc-lavalin/) based on unnamed sources?  Or shouldn't we not have believed that, either? ;)
... That said, most Canadian's seem more interested in the circus south of the border so maybe this will all go away.
I don't know about that -- a lot of people I know who keep at least some track of politics have been riveted by this one, even those interested by whazzup south of the border.  YMMV
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Journeyman on February 28, 2019, 11:04:12
…. so maybe this will all go away.
In both US and Canadian politics, there will be some for whom -- equally mindlessly -- the ruling leaders can do either no wrong or nothing right. 

An increasing number of other people are apparently finding behaviours increasingly abhorrent, but will move on with the next "SQUIRREL!"  Personally, I'm finding this current  SNC Lavalin 'crisis' to be more of the same from both that company, Irvings, etc., and whichever party tends to be governing (although I feel that the Liberals tend to be worse at lining their pockets).

As such, while it's already stayed in the news longer than I expected, I can't help but believe (being more cynical than milnews.ca  ;) ), that the sheeple will eventually wander off, and it will indeed go away.  It will be brought up periodically, but the reactions will become increasingly blasé.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 28, 2019, 11:09:02
Tony, my rebuttal.

Quote
Don't forget, though, that he was first appointed into the DM ranks by this guy ...(Harper)

Was the best person for the job at the time, and unaware of partisanship.

 
Quote
Quote from: Chris Pook on Yesterday at 23:44:09
...The press.  - The notion that the PMO can wall-paper the media with op-ed writers and experts is not going down well with the club.  It tends to give credence to all those who believe that the news is something less than it professes ...

Well, if you believe that, then how much doubt did you express when a media outlet, one of those "bought" by Team Red, came out with allegations of political meddling in a legal case based on unnamed sources?  A lot of people were happy to forget the Globe's alleged track record of being in the tank for the Liberals, until they published something bashing said Liberals - where were the critiques of those who believe the news is something less than it professes? ;)

It's about the money. Getting a national scoop, to add to the G & M's reputation as a news outlet, to increase circulation, get its scoop quoted by everyone.

What happens now. I hope the GG, as posted previously, dissolves this Parliament, the Conservatives win a majority, govern responsibly, and JWR is appointed first indigenous GG shortly after. Even if JWR is re-elected as a Liberal, she should be appointed GG.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Colin P on February 28, 2019, 11:14:12
I suppose JT could resign and another senior Liberal could take over as PM if the mess continues to spiral.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jed on February 28, 2019, 11:20:25
Tony, my rebuttal.

Was the best person for the job at the time, and unaware of partisanship.

 
It's about the money. Getting a national scoop, to add to the G & M's reputation as a news outlet, to increase circulation, get its scoop quoted by everyone.

What happens now. I hope the GG, as posted previously, dissolves this Parliament, the Conservatives win a majority, govern responsibly, and JWR is appointed first indigenous GG shortly after. Even if JWR is re-elected as a Liberal, she should be appointed GG.


Ah , probably the best outcome for the Canadian people. Too damn good to actually transpire though.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 28, 2019, 11:33:09
That would include the "bought" media that brought us the first story starting this thread (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-pmo-pressed-justice-minister-to-abandon-prosecution-of-snc-lavalin/) based on unnamed sources?  Or shouldn't we not have believed that, either? ;) I don't know about that -- a lot of people I know who keep at least some track of politics have been riveted by this one, even those interested by whazzup south of the border.  YMMV

My  facebook feed was full of people I know watching and commenting.  Even here at work where politics is rarely discussed it was brought up.

More people are catching on to this story as it barrels on fire towards a cliff...

Agreed on the media.  They broke the story and they are all over this. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2019, 11:43:46
BTW all (including mods), thanks for keeping the discussion all detailed & civil here.
I suppose JT could resign and another senior Liberal could take over as PM if the mess continues to spiral.
Any specific "senior Liberals" in mind? :)
Was the best person for the job at the time, and unaware of partisanship.
Could very well be the case -- but he stayed in the DM position for the entire tenure of Team Blue and ended up as the 2 i/c to the person then holding the Clerk of PCO's position, all under the same PM (https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-wernick-81ab7328/?originalSubdomain=ca).  May 2006 (start of DM'ship) thru November 2015 (end of Team Blue's latest tenure) seems a long time to hang onto someone one suspects of alleged partisanship/disloyalty/less-than-full compliance.
It's about the money. Getting a national scoop, to add to the G & M's reputation as a news outlet, to increase circulation, get its scoop quoted by everyone.
Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed & agreed (especially about the making money bits).  Still doesn't speak to why some people were skeptical about "bought" MSM sharing information without also being skeptical about this information coming from the same, allegedly tainted source.

What happens now. I hope the GG, as posted previously, dissolves this Parliament, the Conservatives win a majority, govern responsibly, and JWR is appointed first indigenous GG shortly after. Even if JWR is re-elected as a Liberal, she should be appointed GG.
My  :2c: for what it's worth, in order ...
My  facebook feed was full of people I know watching and commenting.
I'm intrigued by how many people who are FAR from fans of Team Red, especially those frustrated with what they consider "cabinet by quota", suggesting this Liberal cabinet minister should be PM.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on February 28, 2019, 11:47:48
Not many things can smell what's in the wind better than a bloodhound. The Press is one of those things.They can tell their benefactor is in some serious doodoo here, so they're choice is to either start sucking up to their next potential grocery bringer, or go into full on spin mode.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 28, 2019, 11:48:26

What happens now. I hope the GG, as posted previously, dissolves this Parliament, the Conservatives win a majority, govern responsibly, and JWR is appointed first indigenous GG shortly after. Even if JWR is re-elected as a Liberal, she should be appointed GG.

On what grounds would the GG dissolve parliament?

A no confidence vote has not occurred.

Elections have not been called.

There is no constitutional crisis.

While the GG has the absolute power to do so, that office needs a reason beyond allegations.  If the RCMP get called in it is doubtful anything will be determined until well after the next election anyways.  As damning as JWR's testimony is there are others that still need to be heard.  I'm convinced that something did indeed happen as she described it but we don't just dissolve governments on the word of one person.  Due process is required.

The more likely scenario is that the PM resigns or is pushed out (that is what I think is more likely) by caucus.  The LPC picks a leader who has the confidence of the house to form government (they have enough of a majority to do this) and runs in the next election.

JWR will never be appointed to anything by the current government.  sucks but they put their line in the sand.  Would a CPC government appoint her? Maybe.

She would make a good choice yes but I doubt that can happen in this climate. 

If JT gets pushed out, maybe JWR should make a run for the leadership (unfortunately the liberal machine might be too much against her though).

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 12:04:05
Don't forget, though, that he was first appointed into the DM ranks by this guy ...
(https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1003262547301097472/UqUTTE49_400x400.jpg)
... and kept there when he could have EASILY been moved/punted by any PM thinking he wasn't up to the job.

However, if you want to read tea leaves, there's always this @ LinkedIn (https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-wernick-81ab7328/) :) - screen capture attached if link doesn't work for you.
Well, if you believe that, then how much doubt did you express when a media outlet, one of those "bought" by Team Red, came out with allegations of political meddling in a legal case based on unnamed sources?  A lot of people were happy to forget the Globe's alleged track record of being in the tank for the Liberals, until they published something bashing said Liberals - where were the critiques of those who believe the news is something less than it professes? ;)

Also, do you think this is any different from any other government in power at any level, be they Team Red, Team Blue or Team Orange?

All that said ... :nod:

Power is usually a means to an end.   The end is self-aggrandizement, personal wealth or, worst of all in my belief, a desire to change the world to conform to your beliefs.

Butts, my opinion, is one of the most dangerous type: driven by conviction - and thus, along with Telford, not bothered by the niceties.

Warnick is may be only a common grifter willing to go along to get along. 

I suspect that the higher the pay grade, and the closer to the centre of power one gets, the more one is likely to run into both Wernick and Butts clones.  And that, to me, is a problem, if there is an entrenched belief in a Natural Governing Party.

 :cheers:  Cheers, mate!
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2019, 12:08:47
A bit of analysis (https://globalnews.ca/news/5007305/analysis-trudeau-brand-jody-wilson-raybould-testimony/) by someone who's been around these circles a bit (https://globalnews.ca/author/david-akin/) ...
Quote
We now know why the prime minister, the finance minister, their most senior aides and the country’s top bureaucrat put so much pressure on Jody Wilson-Raybould last fall to intervene in a criminal court case on behalf of a Montreal company.

It was the votes — votes the Liberals in Quebec City and the Liberals in Ottawa thought they were sure to lose if that company, SNC-Lavalin, decamped from its Montreal headquarters for foreign shores, a move it was threatening to make to avoid punishment, should it be found guilty of the corporate fraud it is alleged to have committed in Libya.

“SNC announcing they’re leaving six months before the election is bad,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s senior adviser Mathieu Bouchard allegedly said to Wilson-Raybould as he was pressuring her to intervene. “We need to be re-elected.”

Well, here’s some news for Bouchard and everyone else in the Trudeau PMO: you know what’s worse than SNC-Lavalin moving out of Montreal six months before an election? The testimony Wilson-Raybould gave Wednesday afternoon at a House of Commons committee. It was bad. Real bad ...
More @ link
Meanwhile, attached find another copy of JWR's opening statement (from her web site (https://jwilson-raybould.liberal.ca/news-nouvelles/statement-from-the-hon-jody-wilson-raybould-at-the-standing-committee-on-justice-and-human-rights/)) if you haven't already read it - LOTS of detail w/dates, names, what was said (see what taking notes does?).
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 12:10:45
Unlikely, the motion would be voted down by the Liberal majority.

I believe that if Her Excellency the Governor General assessed that the Government had lost the confidence of the people, independent of a lower house vote, there could be action taken, but that is unlikely at this point.

I believe the Aussies tried that a while back.  It prompted a lovely little dust up (kind of like the King-Byng affair locally) and a ditty:  "Get your dungarees off, Gough. Get your dungarees off."


Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 12:20:41
milnews:

"Agreed, agreed, agreed, agreed & agreed (especially about the making money bits).  Still doesn't speak to why some people were skeptical about "bought" MSM sharing information without also being skeptical about this information coming from the same, allegedly tainted source."

For the same reasons that some days I can convince myself that purple is blue and other days I see purple as red.  And it becomes harder when purple is mauve or violet.   ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 28, 2019, 12:28:41
I believe the Aussies tried that a while back.  It prompted a lovely little dust up (kind of like the King-Byng affair locally) and a ditty:  "Get your dungarees off, Gough. Get your dungarees off."

Both those cases involved a constitutional crisis.  Although the King Byng issue had a scandal involving bribes it was the constitutional crisis that was the problem.  king Byng thing was about the GG letting another party try to govern in a minority situation.  The aussies' crisis of 1975 was the outright dismissal of a PM based on confidence issue (an issue that could never happen here due to how our senate differs).

 Neither is a good precedent for what is happening now.

What is happening now is quite unprecedented. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 28, 2019, 12:37:31
Listening online to local radio from Wpg and Kelowna, Liberal MP's talking points are they believe the PM, he has done nothing wrong, protecting jobs.

What's on your local radio?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 12:57:38
Both those cases involved a constitutional crisis.  Although the King Byng issue had a scandal involving bribes it was the constitutional crisis that was the problem.  king Byng thing was about the GG letting another party try to govern in a minority situation.  The aussies' crisis of 1975 was the outright dismissal of a PM based on confidence issue (an issue that could never happen here due to how our senate differs).

 Neither is a good precedent for what is happening now.

What is happening now is quite unprecedented.

Strangely, (I'm sure you will appreciate this), I agree.

Options for the opposition look to be to keep this in the news for the next 8 months with confidence votes and committees, calls for investigations, tying in pipelines and the Norman case and take advantage of new leaks as they come out.

Options for the government?  Rag the puck until the election and trust to the fates?  Fire the entire headshed and hope to god you can rebuild a reputation?

Next week or 8 months from now a bunch of Liberals are going to be looking for a new source of income.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jed on February 28, 2019, 13:06:10
Strangely, (I'm sure you will appreciate this), I agree.

Options for the opposition look to be to keep this in the news for the next 8 months with confidence votes and committees, calls for investigations, tying in pipelines and the Norman case and take advantage of new leaks as they come out.

Options for the government?  Rag the puck until the election and trust to the fates?  Fire the entire headshed and hope to god you can rebuild a reputation?

Next week or 8 months from now a bunch of Liberals are going to be looking for a new source of income.

So the Canadian people are in for piss poor governance until the end of 2019 as more and more biased and unethical behavior emanates from Ottawa? Great, how uplifting.
 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 13:09:09
Jed:

Just consider it like managing a pregnancy.  9 months and a surprise.  ;)

One further point:

About Jody Wilson-Raybould and her testimony. 

I was struck by how calm and composed she was.  I sensed that this was a person completely at ease with her situation and I believe that that is in large part that as an "outsider" in Ottawa she draws her strength not from the locals but from her roots - her family, her clan and her beliefs.  I suspect that regardless of the outcome she knows she can always go home and live with herself.

The nearest parallel that came to my mind was that of Thomas More (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More). 

Although I expect Ms. Wilson-Raybould to be less ill-used than More.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on February 28, 2019, 13:14:36
Jed:

Just consider it like managing a pregnancy.  9 months and a surprise.  ;)

One further point:

About Jody Wilson-Raybould and her testimony. 

I was struck by how calm and composed she was.  I sensed that this was a person completely at ease with her situation and I believe that that is in large part that as an "outsider" in Ottawa she draws her strength not from the locals but from her roots - her family, her clan and her beliefs.  I suspect that regardless of the outcome she knows she can always go home and live with herself.

The nearest parallel that came to my mind was that of Thomas More (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_More). 

Although I expect Ms. Wilson-Raybould to be less ill-used than More.

Or, and this is just the meanderings of a sleep deprived mind, The cynics among us could see it as her having a game plan toward future employment, and has just Bangalore Torpedoed a couple of very big obstacles in her centre of axis.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 13:26:06
Or, and this is just the meanderings of a sleep deprived mind, The cynics among us could see it as her having a game plan toward future employment, and has just Bangalore Torpedoed a couple of very big obstacles in her centre of axis.

That too.  But she appeared way too calm, at least to my eyes, to be game-playing.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2019, 13:26:37
Or, and this is just the meanderings of a sleep deprived mind ...
Who still knows enough to take detailed notes while being deprived of said sleep ;)
... The cynics among us could see it as her having a game plan toward future employment, and has just Bangalore Torpedoed a couple of very big obstacles in her centre of axis.
So young to be so cynical ... :)

That said, I, too, wonder about her long game. :pop:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: garb811 on February 28, 2019, 13:32:12
First, I'd like to thank everyone for the level of discourse being maintained; this is certainly the standard we would like to continue to see in the political threads.

Second, please remember that not everyone is viewing the thread with the same colour scheme you are drafting your response with. While the use of coloured text certainly allows you to emphasize certain aspects of your post, the colours you choose may actually have the opposite effect on one of the other versions of the site by making certain coloured portions of your post essentially unreadable.

Army.ca Staff
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: JesseWZ on February 28, 2019, 13:34:47

I was struck by how calm and composed she was.  I sensed that this was a person completely at ease with her situation and I believe that that is in large part that as an "outsider" in Ottawa she draws her strength not from the locals but from her roots - her family, her clan and her beliefs.  I suspect that regardless of the outcome she knows she can always go home and live with herself.


It was mentioned earlier in the thread, but I believe a good source of that calm and composed nature was she could fall back on her notes which were made contemporaneously.

When I'm in court getting cross examined, I have always been thankful to "past self" for taking good clear notes regarding my interactions. It's amazing how quickly memory can fail you in pressured situations.

There is a lesson there for all of us - particularly folks in a leadership position. I am often asked by people on what to do in situations when something smells bad but doesn't necessarily invite police involvement. My answer is always the same, start by taking good clear notes about everything you can remember in the conversation / interaction.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 28, 2019, 13:37:50
Except if you work in the high echelons of NDHQ.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 13:44:15
Except if you work in the high echelons of NDHQ.

Field Message Pads are so ugly and they spoil the way the tunic falls.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 28, 2019, 13:47:39
Warren Kinsella: RCMP were watching, now investigating, sending preservation letters, obtaining search warrants. https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1622821&playlistId=1.4316317&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2019, 13:50:26
Warren Kinsella: RCMP were watching, now investigating, sending preservation letters, obtaining search warrants. https://www.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=1622821&playlistId=1.4316317&binId=1.810401&playlistPageNum=1&binPageNum=1
Tick, tick, tick ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 28, 2019, 14:06:51
When I'm in court getting cross examined, I have always been thankful to "past self" for taking good clear notes regarding my interactions. It's amazing how quickly memory can fail you in pressured situations.

Good notes have saved my bacon a few times in court.

There is a lesson there for all of us - particularly folks in a leadership position. I am often asked by people on what to do in situations when something smells bad but doesn't necessarily invite police involvement. My answer is always the same, start by taking good clear notes about everything you can remember in the conversation / interaction.

I usually take copious point form notes during meetings leaving space below each to fill in the details later either during round table discussions or Q&As.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 14:16:53
Meanwhile, in Montreal

Quote
PM Trudeau reflecting on Wilson-Raybould's presence in Liberal caucus

The only related article in the on-line edition of the Montreal Gazette.

https://montrealgazette.com/

That and Christie Blatchford's opinion piece buried low on the opinion page.  The editorial is about Cannabis.

La Presse gives the case a similar light treatment

https://www.lapresse.ca/actualites/politique/


Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 28, 2019, 14:56:48
Or, and this is just the meanderings of a sleep deprived mind, The cynics among us could see it as her having a game plan toward future employment, and has just Bangalore Torpedoed a couple of very big obstacles in her centre of axis.

I think that as a trained lawyer (crown prosecutor at that) that she knew exactly what she was doing and how to do it.   She had a game plan.  But I think it had more to do with her showing the world that she was not going to have her integrity questioned.  Her performance will be talked about for a long time.  Very impressive.

Employability will not be an issue for her.  I'm willing to bet she has dozens of offers from other sectors right now.

Read her bio.  Her father clashed with JT's father.  Her father told PET that her daughter wanted to be PM one day.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Colin P on February 28, 2019, 15:37:04
Watch for announcements of various legislation and initiatives as they desperately try to change the channel. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 28, 2019, 15:40:47
Watch for announcements of various legislation and initiatives as they desperately try to change the channel.

If they follow their Ontario provincial counterparts they will promise all sorts of stuff. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on February 28, 2019, 15:46:43
That would include the "bought" media that brought us the first story starting this thread (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-pmo-pressed-justice-minister-to-abandon-prosecution-of-snc-lavalin/) based on unnamed sources?  Or shouldn't we not have believed that, either? ;)

Yes it would.

Does it mean the media is going to be silenced? No.
Completely ignore getting first crack at a story that may possibly topple the liberal government?  Probably not.
But pull a lot of punches or burry stories? I think so.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 28, 2019, 15:56:55
Watch for announcements of various legislation and initiatives as they desperately try to change the channel.

Well, announcing Canada is going to the Moon, then Mars, with the Americans, investing in development of Canadarm-3, certainly didn't work today: every single question he fielded after the announcement at the Canadian Space Agency was about the Wilson-Raybould testimony.  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 28, 2019, 16:05:08
Well, announcing Canada is going to the Moon, then Mars, with the Americans, investing in development of Canadarm-3, certainly didn't work today: every single question he fielded after the announcement at the Canadian Space Agency was about the Wilson-Raybould testimony.  :facepalm:
Along with the Minister of Public Safety's announcement (https://ipolitics.ca/2019/02/27/liberals-to-grant-expedited-pardons-for-cannabis-possession/) yesterday of a bill to allow "expedited pardons" for cannabis convictions.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: JesseWZ on February 28, 2019, 16:07:04
Yes it would.

Does it mean the media is going to be silenced? No.
Completely ignore getting first crack at a story that may possibly topple the liberal government?  Probably not.
But pull a lot of punches or burry stories? I think so.

I don't necessarily agree. Now that this issue is in the open, there will be a veritable feeding fest as media dials up every source they have in the government looking for additional tidbits, other allegations of corruption, anything they can even remotely connect to this issue (think VAdm Norman, etc).

I think the Honourable Member for Vancouver-Granville is a crack in the dam of silence which may embolden others to come forward and share their stories.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 28, 2019, 16:15:03
Personally, I wish the Liberal caucus members who are not part of the government (they are the majority, BTW, as only members who hold an appointment as either ministers, or in the larger sense as secretaries of state, are actually part of the government - not any backbenchers) would get the courage to actually do their job as our watchers of the government and actually oust him. The GG then can either dissolve Parliament or ask someone else (Wilson-Raybould?) to see if he/she get the confidence of the Commons to put together a cabinet.

But that's just me, a conservative constitutional monarchist.
 :dunno:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on February 28, 2019, 16:17:13
Yes it would.

Does it mean the media is going to be silenced? No.
Completely ignore getting first crack at a story that may possibly topple the liberal government?  Probably not.
But pull a lot of punches or burry stories? I think so.

Arguably that was happening before. So status quo?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 28, 2019, 16:19:17
With just eight months til the election, I’m quite sure the Governor General will leave the question of confidence in the elected majority government in the hands of the voters where, in all but the most extreme cases, it should reside.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on February 28, 2019, 16:28:22
I don't necessarily agree. Now that this issue is in the open, there will be a veritable feeding fest as media dials up every source they have in the government looking for additional tidbits, other allegations of corruption, anything they can even remotely connect to this issue (think VAdm Norman, etc).

One starts to wonder if “the other issue” about which the then-Attorney General wished to speak to the PM was related to the good Vice-Admiral? 

One of the sad story lines in the “accountability of actions and investigations” is the PM’s assertion that the Justice Committee has the investigation well in hand, yet it is not truly representative of the people as the partisan majority of the Committee continues to resist a scope of investigation that Joe and Jane Canada reasonably should expect to be pursued.

Regards
G2G 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2019, 16:31:40
Does it mean the media is going to be silenced? No.
Completely ignore getting first crack at a story that may possibly topple the liberal government?  Probably not.
But pull a lot of punches or burry stories? I think so.
More nuanced answer - thanks for clarifying.
Personally, I wish the Liberal caucus members who are not part of the government (they are the majority, BTW, as only members who hold an appointment as either ministers, or in the larger sense as secretaries of state, are actually part of the government - not any backbenchers) would get the courage to actually do their job as our watchers of the government and actually oust him ...
Until the rules change, all MP's are "part" of government.  Never say never, but political memories can be long when future bosses consider such political defiers/courageous stand takers.
... The GG then can either dissolve Parliament or ask someone else (Wilson-Raybould?) to see if he/she get the confidence of the Commons to put together a cabinet ...
Not quite that "someone else", according to this (https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Compendium/ParliamentaryFramework/c_d_confidenceconvention-e.htm) ...
Quote
... Should the Government be defeated on a confidence question, under this convention the Prime Minister would normally be required to submit his or her resignation to the Governor General. The Governor General may either dissolve Parliament with a view to a general election or, much more rarely, invite the leader of another party in the House to form a new government ...
One of the sad story lines in the “accountability of actions and investigations” is the PM’s assertion that the Justice Committee has the investigation well in hand, yet it is not truly representative of the people as the partisan majority of the Committee continues to resist a scope of investigation that Joe and Jane Canada reasonably should expect to be pursued.
Under FPTP, the committees represent the "results" of the election based on # of seats, not the popular vote.  So, time for prop rep voting?  :stirpot:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 16:41:22
Quote
Until the rules change, all MP's are "part" of government.  Never say never, but political memories can be long when future bosses consider such political defiers/courageous stand takers.

Actually, I don't believe that all MPs ARE part of government.

Government comprises the Governor in Council, in other words the PM, the cabinet and the Privy Council (for whom Michael Wernick is the clerk (scribe, note-taker, secretary, personal assistant).

The Civil Service works for the government.

The government, largely sits in Parliament, but Parliament is not the government.  Parliament, and its members, exist to restrain, constrain, contain and otherwise govern the government.   And that goes for MPs that are elected to support the government as well.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on February 28, 2019, 16:42:30
I think the Honourable Member for Vancouver-Granville is a crack in the dam of silence which may embolden others to come forward and share their stories.

One fellow BC Liberal MP has come forward to insinuate that her father was "pulling the strings" and that her perception of political interference was simply a lack of experience and that she couldn't handle the stress.  He has since apologized for his misogynistic comments relating to her father.  I expect more MPs will come forth to attack her in the coming days. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on February 28, 2019, 16:46:59
One fellow BC Liberal MP has come forward to insinuate that her father was "pulling the strings" and that her perception of political interference was simply a lack of experience and that she couldn't handle the stress.  He has since apologized for his misogynistic comments relating to her father.  I expect more MPs will come forth to attack her in the coming days.

Even though the PM apologized for his tardiness in addressing the first round of ad hominem attacks on Wilson-Raybould, I too expect more rounds of such attacks, but of course in no way directed by the PM, anyone in PMO, the PCO, etc. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Old Sweat on February 28, 2019, 16:47:52
And in a startling development, according to this story in the National Post reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act, much of the Quebec punditry has turned on Trudeau:

How Quebec is reacting to Jody Wilson-Raybould’s bombshell: ‘Nobody is a friend of Trudeau’ (https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/how-quebec-is-reacting-to-jody-wilson-rayboulds-bombshell-nobody-is-a-friend-of-trudeau)
Wrote one columnist, if Quebecers continue supporting Trudeau, in spite of this attack on judicial independence, 'we are imbeciles'

Marie-Danielle Smith
February 28, 2019
1:41 PM EST

OTTAWA — After weeks of sympathizing with his plight to save SNC-Lavalin from the potential penalties of criminal prosecution, Quebec’s pundit classes have now concluded that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau crossed the line in his dealings with former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould.

In the hours after Wilson-Raybould’s scathing testimony at a Commons justice committee Wednesday evening, commentary emanating from the home province of the embattled engineering firm, which is being prosecuted for corruption, took on a harsher tone. Chantal Hébert, a Montreal-based columnist for the Toronto Star and L’actualité, put it this way on a Radio-Canada morning radio show Thursday: After a review of the newspapers, she said in French, “nobody is a friend of Trudeau this morning.”

Quebecers could think that Wilson-Raybould had made an error in judgment by deciding not to pursue a deferred prosecution agreement for SNC-Lavalin, in light of thousands of jobs that could be put at risk if a conviction resulted in a ban on bidding for public contracts. But they could at the same time agree that it was deeply inappropriate for the prime minister to spend four months trying to twist her arm after a decision had been made, Hébert argued.

The committee testimony was front page news for the likes of Le Devoir and the Journal de Montreal. But at midday you had to scroll down to find stories about Wilson-Raybould on the websites of most Quebec-based media outlets.

The top story on La Presse was about home retailers Lowe’s and Rona. The Journal focused on a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. Television station TVA Nouvelles featured a story about immigration, public broadcaster Radio-Canada one about Australian F-18 fighter jets and the English-language Montreal Gazette an interview with a mountain climber about icy Montreal sidewalks.

On TVA, Mario Dumont, a TV personality and former leader of provincial party Action démocratique du Québec, took note Thursday morning of how Wilson-Raybould’s testimony was dominating English-language media, and how some national columnists were questioning Trudeau’s moral authority to govern. “Excuse me, I will re-ask the same question as last week, and the week before,” he said in French. “Our friends at the Globe and Mail and the National Post — would they be as severe and intransigent if we were talking about a firm whose headquarters was in Toronto?”

Still, Dumont declared there is “no doubt” now that there was mismanagement from the top. And a review of French-language media made it clear that the scandal was resonating with some Quebec commentators in a new way. After all, Trudeau explicitly used Quebec’s provincial election and his own federal seat in Montreal as reasons why Wilson-Raybould should change her mind, according to her testimony.

SNC-Lavalin had not been a topic in debates around the Quebec provincial election last fall. The company had “no link” to the election, argued Pierre Jury for Le Droit, a Gatineau newspaper. But, he hypothesized, mentioning the election could’ve been Trudeau’s way to raise the prospect of SNC-Lavalin moving its headquarters from Quebec while still trying to “walk on eggshells” and avoid spelling out the federal political consequences in earnest.

For La Presse, Paul Journet wrote that questions should still be asked about why Wilson-Raybould closed the door so quickly to a remediation agreement, since perhaps a minister from British Columbia wouldn’t understand how important SNC-Lavalin was to Quebec’s public interest. But the Trudeau government’s “clumsy and dubious manoeuvres” now risked making a solution for the company politically untenable.

At Le Devoir, Michel David acknowledged it was normal for the prime minister to note SNC-Lavalin’s importance to the Quebec economy. But it was now very difficult to believe that Wilson-Raybould lost her position as attorney general for any other reason than that she refused to bend to the prime minister’s will. It would be likewise hard to imagine the new justice minister, David Lametti, reversing her decision after Wilson-Raybould so clearly raised concerns about whether the independence of the office would stay intact after her departure.

The Journal’s Richard Martineau, with a headline “The real Justin Trudeau,” dug in the deepest. For all his feminism and openness and humanism and generosity and altruism, etcetera, how could Trudeau fling the justice system out the window so easily? And was it because of empathy for workers that Trudeau wanted to save SNC-Lavalin, Martineau asked? “No. Because Justin needs votes in Quebec to win his next election,” he wrote, and Quebecers will protect their own even if they build prisons for dictators and pay for their sons’ prostitutes to get contracts.

“Imagine if Stephen Harper acted that way. The Red Cross would have to send doctors to Radio-Canada to treat journalist victims of apoplexy,” the columnist wrote. If Quebecers continue supporting Trudeau now, in spite of this attack on the independence of the justice system, “we are imbeciles.”

- mod edit to add link -
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2019, 16:48:20
Actually, I don't believe that all MPs ARE part of government.
Maybe not part of the executive branch of government, but not not a part, either according to these guys (https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament/Education/ourcountryourparliament/html_booklet/overview-canadian-parliamentary-system-e.html) ...
Quote
... Three branches work together to govern Canada: the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The executive branch (also called the Government) is the decision-making branch, made up of the Monarch (represented by the Governor General), the Prime Minister, and the Cabinet. The legislative branch is the law-making branch, made up of the appointed Senate and the elected House of Commons. The judicial branch is a series of independent courts that interpret the laws passed by the other two branches ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 28, 2019, 16:49:56
Actually, Brihard, there is no such thing in Canada as a "elected majority government".

First in the history of Canada we have elected exactly ZERO "governments". Our government is a monarchy run hereditarily by the Queen. She appoints a Prime Minister who then selects his/her cabinet. There are no obligation whatsoever that the member of the Cabinet come from  Parliament. The only requirement is that the P.M. have and retain the confidence of the elected members of Parliament.

The job of the elected members of Parliament is to actually act as the People's representative to control government - particularly spending by the government - through legislation. Since only the P.M. and the Ministers (and I guess ministers of state and Parliamentary secretaries) form the Government, and none of the backbenchers are part of the government regardless of their political affiliation, there is no such thing as voters deciding on confidence in the P.M. and his government. The matter belongs exclusively to the elected members of Parliament, even today.

This is the very basis of Responsible Government, Westminster style, we Canadians have been gifted with as a result of Lord Durham's work. Unfortunately, the "Government" has fought back to get back apparently unlimited power, by eviscerating the powers of Parliament over the decades, particularly since the 1960's and with major gutting since the 1990's. The result is that the PMO's now believes itself unrestricted in all it does and runs roughshod over the other Ministers and Parliament as if they were mere mouthpieces.

That, BTW, is how we got where we are in this very matter. And don't believe for one moment that  threatening demotion of Ministers or of sending ordinary M.P.s of one's own political party out of valuable Committees of Parliament is NOT in the PMO's arsenal to keep everyone in line.

And Milnews, I believe that the site from the Parliament of Canada you cite, is wrong: Political parties are private organizations that have no actual existence under our constitution. The Queen, and her representative, can select anyone at all in Canada, elected or not, to form a government (BTW, it happened twice to Christie Clark in B.-C.). She is not limited in any way in who she choses to form a government. It is by tradition only that she usually (as indicated before) choses the elected leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament - simply because there is a presumption that such leader starts by having the confidence of those elected members of his/her party. It doesn't have to last: see all the changes of leaders in London, Canberra or Auckland originating in caucus. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 17:01:23
Maybe not part of the executive branch of government, but not not a part, either according to these guys (https://lop.parl.ca/About/Parliament/Education/ourcountryourparliament/html_booklet/overview-canadian-parliamentary-system-e.html) ...

Quote
GOVERNMENT:
Executive (the Monarch/Governor General, the Prime Minister and the Cabinet)
Federal departments (such as National Defence, Justice and Finance)

What I said.....


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Members of Parliament.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on February 28, 2019, 17:10:59
What I said.....


Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?  Members of Parliament.
Then you're both right & they have to clean up their wording (or clarify the capital G thing) :)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 17:22:44
.... The Queen, and her representative, can select anyone at all in Canada, elected or not, to form a government (BTW, it happened twice to Christie Clark in B.-C.). She is not limited in any way in who she choses to form a government. It is by tradition only that she usually (as indicated before) choses the elected leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament - simply because there is a presumption that such leader starts by having the confidence of those elected members of his/her party. It doesn't have to last: see all the changes of leaders in London, Canberra or Auckland originating in caucus.

Interesting thought experiment.

Parliament originally formed around people with armies resolving disputes. The prospect of those armies tended to keep the Monarchs in line.  Then it was discovered that gold was mightier than the sword and the Monarch was constrained by Parliament controlling the supply of gold.  Armies were dispensed with. And then we moved on to people organizing virtual armies of voters, or parties.

What happens though, if the virtual armies fail to appear?  What happens if no Party can secure a large enough following in the House?  Or worse the House itself falls into disrepute and nobody turns out to support anybody?

If the turnout drops below 50% at the next election could the Governor General be justified in appointing her own cabinet to the Privy Council? 40%? 30%? 5 %?

I note that in the US Congress job approval is somewhere around 10 to 20%.  At what point can the be ignored?

(https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/2lslk2-kwuurw4n-sfjgag.png)

In Canada Parliament does a bit better at something like 40%, comparable to that of the Brits and the Aussies.

(https://www.conferenceboard.ca/Files/hcp/society/soc_Trust_ch1-2012.png)

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 28, 2019, 17:28:58
Then you're both right & they have to clean up their wording (or clarify the capital G thing) :)
Well hang on now. As Admiral Scheer put it last night, "... It seems clear that Justin Trudeau doesn't seem to know where the Liberal Party ends and the government begins".   Butter or margerine, they may taste the same...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on February 28, 2019, 18:34:12
Well hang on now. As Admiral Scheer put it last night, "... It seems clear that Justin Trudeau doesn't seem to know where the Liberal Party ends and the government begins".   Butter or margerine, they may taste the same...

Who is Admiral Scheer?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 28, 2019, 19:26:26
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/02/28/news/bill-morneau-denies-wrongdoing-snc-lavalin

Bill Morneau denies wrongdoing on SNC-Lavalin

By Fatima Syed & Alastair Sharp in News, Politics | February 28th 2019

Finance Minister Bill Morneau says his staff acted "absolutely appropriately" on the SNC-Lavalin file, denying any wrongdoing in presenting the economic case for helping the engineering company avoid a criminal trial.

Morneau defended the behaviour of officials including his chief of staff, Ben Chin, to reporters in Toronto Thursday, less than 24 hours after the former justice minister and attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould, gave damning testimony in front of the House of Commons justice committee accusing him of applying "extraordinary pressure" on her.

Asked repeatedly whether he had directed his chief of staff Ben Chin to contact @Puglaas' staff with message that a deferral for SNC-Lavalin had to happen, @Bill_Morneau finally answered: "No, I did not."

In the short press conference, Morneau responded unequivocally that neither he, nor his staff, did anything wrong.

"I want to be clear. I never raised this issue with Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould," said Morneau, who also acknowledged that, as per her testimony, the former attorney general approached him about the issue on Sept. 19.

"She approached me (in the House of Commons) to tell me that my staff was approaching her staff, which I think is entirely appropriate," he said, adding that he could not recall more details about that interaction in the House.

In her testimony, Wilson-Raybould said she spoke with Morneau in the Commons, where “he again stressed the need to save jobs, and I told him that engagements from his office to mine on SNC had to stop - that they were inappropriate.”

Wilson-Raybould detailed two other meetings with Morneau's chief of staff Ben Chin in her testimony, noting that he had urged her office to "find a solution" to help save jobs in the context of the Quebec Oct. 1 general election.

"My staff, appropriately, would make her staff aware of the economic consequences of decisions, about the importance of thinking about jobs," Morneau said Thursday.

<snip>

Morneau's comments came hours after Trudeau told reporters, again, that Wilson-Raybould's continued membership in the Liberal caucus was under consideration.
(She has stated that "I was elected by the constituents of Vancouver-Granville to represent them as a Liberal Member of Parliament" and has no intention of leaving her party, and does not expect to be expelled; expulsion would, in my view, weaken Trudeau even further - Loachman)

Speaking to reporters after an event at the Canadian Space Agency in Quebec, Trudeau said he has "taken knowledge of her testimony and there are still reflections to have on next steps."

<snip>

When asked about this Thursday, Trudeau deflected by saying, again, that "had [former treasury board president] Scott Brison not stepped down, Jody Wilson-Raybould would still be minister of justice and attorney general of Canada." He also repeated that both him and his office were appropriate in all their dealings with Wilson-Raybould and her office, and that he disagreed with her version of events.

The following article was originally linked by Milnews. I have included a little more from the article:

https://globalnews.ca/news/5007305/analysis-trudeau-brand-jody-wilson-raybould-testimony/

February 28, 2019 6:00 am

ANALYSIS: The Trudeau brand takes a hit after Jody Wilson-Raybould testimony

By David Akin

<snip>

Well, here’s some news for Bouchard and everyone else in the Trudeau PMO: you know what’s worse than SNC-Lavalin moving out of Montreal six months before an election? The testimony Wilson-Raybould gave Wednesday afternoon at a House of Commons committee. It was bad. Real bad.

Wilson-Raybould’s careful, measured testimony - based on copious notes she took after each and every one of the 10 instances last fall in which she or her staff were bullied to intervene in SNC-Lavalin’s court case - was one jaw-dropping revelation after another of misbehaviour in the most senior offices in the land.

Steve Saideman, a political science professor at Carleton University who keeps a keen eye on Canadian politics, turned to Twitter to neatly sum up the afternoon’s revelations: “Liberals ditched an Indigenous woman who was first to have such a visible and important post to pander to a corrupt company to avoid losing votes in Quebec, right?”

That’s pretty much it, professor. A prime minister who built a nice little international brand as a feminist, who preached reconciliation with Canada’s Indigenous peoples as his top priority fired a female, Indigenous justice minister because she wouldn’t help the team win some votes in Quebec.

Wilson-Raybould described herself as a descendant of Kwakwaka’wakw matriarchs who are “truth-tellers,” and after a long afternoon of fulfilling that destiny, Trudeau called reporters for a quick early evening press conference in Montreal to essentially say there was no truth to what she had told. Oddly, he conceded that he had not watched all of her testimony but was nonetheless able to “strongly disagree” with the testimony he did not see. He suggested she had got it all wrong without offering a single specific instance of a fact Wilson-Raybould presented that was false. Well, if she was so wrong, Mr. Prime Minister, why is she no longer the country’s justice minister?

And how would they know Wilson-Raybould was wrong? While Wilson-Raybould was at pains Monday to explain her prodigious note-taking, the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick - one of Wilson-Raybould’s tormenters - proudly boasted to the same justice committee last week that he took no notes during the meeting with Wilson-Raybould in mid-December, during which he allegedly delivered what Wilson-Raybould described as “veiled threats” that she should come around and bail out SNC-Lavalin.

This is where I have to take issue with Wilson-Raybould’s use of the phrase “veiled threats.” They were not veiled at all. They were naked threats, vicious threats, threats that could not be missed. And, most damning of all, they were threats on which a vengeful prime minister made good on Jan. 7, telling Wilson-Raybould in person that she was no longer his justice minister and could instead serve Canada as veterans affairs minister. (She would resign, shortly afterwards, from cabinet completely, though she remains, as of Wednesday night, a member of the Liberal caucus.)

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-moral-catastrophe-of-justin-trudeau/

The moral catastrophe of Justin Trudeau

Paul Wells: What Jody Wilson-Raybould described today is a sickeningly smug protection racket and it should make us all question what we’re willing to tolerate

by Paul Wells Feb 27, 2019

The dangerous files are never the obscure ones. Scandals don’t happen in the weird little corners of government, in amateur sport or in crop science. They happen on the issues a prime minister cares most about, because everyone gets the message that the rules matter less than the result.

It’s a constant in politics. In 2016 I took one look at Bill Morneau’s first budget and wrote this: “The sponsorship scandal of the late Chrétien years was possible because it was obvious to every scoundrel with Liberal friends that spending on national unity would not receive close scrutiny from a government that was desperate to be seen doing something on the file. A government that considers the scale of its spending to be proof of its virtue is an easy mark for hucksters and worse.”

It wasn’t a perfect prediction. I kind of expected the hucksters and worse to be outside government. Unless the Trudeau Liberals can produce persuasive evidence that Jody Wilson-Raybould is an utter fabulist (and frankly, I now expect several to try), her testimony before the Commons Justice Committee establishes pretty clearly that the hucksters and worse were running the show. Led by the grinning legatee who taints the Prime Ministers’ office.

There will now be a period of stark partisanship. We’re in an election year. Loyal Liberals will tell themselves, and then everyone else, that the price of looking clearly at Justin Trudeau’s bully club (so many men; wonder how Katie Telford felt about that while she was signing off on every element of it) is ceding the field to Andrew Scheer. Who, they will tell themselves and then the country, is an actual Nazi.

I mean, after all, that’s pretty close to what they told one another, and then Jody Wilson-Raybould, last fall, isn’t it? There was an election in Quebec in the first week of October. And Ben Chin, a former journalist who did whatever Christy Clark needed done in B.C. before moving east to do whatever Bill Morneau and the PMO needed doing, used that thin reed of an excuse to try to sway Wilson-Raybould’s chief of staff, Jessica Prince. “If they don’t get a [deferred prosecution agreement], they will leave Montreal, and it’s the Quebec election right now, so we can’t have that happen,” Wilson-Raybould told the committee, paraphrasing Chin’s conversation with Prince.

I’ve never met a Liberal yet who doesn’t reliably confuse his electoral skin with the national interest. So much of what Trudeau and his minions have done in the last year stems from that instinct. Take the ludicrous half-billion-dollar bailout for people in my line of work, never explained, sprung out of nowhere in Morneau’s fall economic update - or as I now like to think of it, between Trudeau advisor Mathieu Bouchard’s meeting (yet another one) with Prince and Michael Wernick’s chat with Wilson-Raybould. (This is a serious statement from a journalist; I do not see any inclination from any journalist, so far, to defend Trudeau or his party, or cover anything up - Loachman) You can get a lot of op-eds written with that kind of dough. Take the cool billion the Canada Infrastructure Bank coughed up to pay for a politically popular and impeccably well-connected transit project around Montreal. That money appeared, from a brand-new bank that has not funded a single other project and did not then yet have a CEO [Update, Thursday: Wrong! It had had a CEO since last May – pw], on the day before Philippe Couillard launched the Quebec election campaign. It is now impossible to believe on faith that the Canada Infrastructure Bank is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ben Chin, Mathieu Bouchard, Katie Telford and Justin Trudeau.

But anyway, back to partisanship. Liberals and their many friends across the land will insist that all this behaviour must have no real-world repercussions because the other side cannot be permitted to gain the upper hand. And similarly, a lot of battle-hardened opponents of the Liberals will call for the jails to be opened up to welcome fresh Liberal meat. Fortunately, there is indeed an election coming up, and I’m content to let voters decide the partisan affiliation of the next government. I offer them no counsel.

But we get to draw our own conclusions as citizens. What the former attorney general described tonight is a sickeningly smug protection racket whose participants must have been astonished when she refused to play along. If a company can rewrite the Criminal Code to get out of a trial whose start date was set before the legislation was drafted, all because a doomed Quebec government has its appointment with the voter, then which excesses are not permitted, under the same justification? If a Clerk of the Privy Council can claim with a straight face that ten calls and meetings with the attorney general, during which massive job loss, an angry PM and a lost election are threatened, don’t constitute interference, then what on earth would interference look like? Tonight I talked with two former public servants whose records rival Michael Wernick’s. Both were flat astonished that he seems not to have pushed back against this deeply disturbing, and plainly widespread, behaviour.

There’ll be time to contemplate mechanisms in the days ahead. I don’t think the ethics commissioner has a broad enough mandate to investigate matters like that Canada Infrastructure Bank investment and other tendrils of this affair. But in the end, the moral collapse of Justin Trudeau’s government teaches each of us a lesson, if we will only listen: There had damned well better be a limit to what we’re willing to do or say, whatever the cause we claim to serve. The rules need to be rules - not for the people we despise, but for ourselves. For myself. For you. Or else we have no souls.

https://torontosun.com/news/national/the-sex-side-of-the-snc-scandal

The sex side of the SNC scandal

Brian Lilley Published: February 27, 2019

The SNC-Lavalin affair has had allegations of bribery, political intrigue and a major cover-up, all that was missing was sex.

Now we have the sex component!

A report by Montreal’s La Presse newspaper says that SNC-Lavalin allegedly paid for a sex-filled trip across Canada for the son of the late Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi.

“Naked dancers, porn movies and many, many, many prostitutes,” the story states.

Saadi Gaddafi was supposedly working on development issues, specifically making Libya a “new Hong Kong” in North Africa, instead it was all about sex.

Security firm Garda World was hired by SNC to escort Gaddafi across the country as he picked up escorts in city after city.

The total bill was more than $30,000 and one Vancouver escort agency charged as much as $10,000 for a single session.

Bills from other escort agencies ranged from $600 to $7,500 per session.

Previous stories about the relationship between SNC-Lavalin and the Gaddafi family noted the lavish trips the company had paid for and the placement of Saadi Gaddafi’s wife was on the company payroll during the Libyan civil war.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-wilson-rayboulds-convincing-testimony-may-cost-trudeau-his-job?video_autoplay=true

John Ivison: Wilson-Raybould's convincing testimony may cost Trudeau his job

If you were watching Wilson-Raybould’s appearance Wednesday afternoon, that cracking sound you heard was Liberal Party unity breaking up

February 27, 2019 10:39 PM EST

Jody Wilson-Raybould’s testimony was so much worse than the opposition could have hoped, or the government might have feared. Justin Trudeau has been hoist by his own petard, and it may cost him his job.

Trudeau appointed as justice minister someone who said she is a “truth-teller,” an Indigenous person who said she has witnessed the consequences of the rule of law not being respected.

He appointed her and then he tried to make her complicit in running roughshod over that law.

If she is to be believed - and her testimony was convincing enough that it is likely she had public opinion in her pocket very early on - when she refused to play along he applied, in her words, “inappropriate political pressure.” When she still failed to bend to his will, he removed her from her position as justice minister.

If he thought she would respond to the “veiled threats” levelled against her, he clearly misread this woman.

If you were watching Wilson-Raybould’s appearance Wednesday afternoon, that cracking sound you heard was Liberal Party unity breaking up. The former attorney general remains a member of the Liberal caucus, and a candidate at the next election. But it is a malignant fidelity. Her testimony has done more harm to her party’s chances of re-election than anything achieved by a hapless opposition. It seems hard to see how she can continue to sit as a Liberal member, far less run again.

<snip>

If she is to be believed - and it has to be noted she made for an extremely credible witness - even the dimmest of dunces would have been able to conclude this was a woman who was resolute and unyielding once her mind was made up.

<snip>

But if the former justice minister’s testimony is to be believed, the sustained nature of the campaign to make her change her mind - with the hint that there would be consequences if she didn’t - may have crossed the line from information to interference.

An independent arbiter - be it the ethics commissioner, or even a judge - needs to make that deliberation.

But voters will reach their own conclusions long before any judicial proceedings take place. The verdict is likely to be harsh.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 28, 2019, 19:32:43
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/speaker-grants-opposition-request-for-emergency-debate-on-snc-lavalin-scandal-1.4316805

Speaker grants opposition request for emergency debate on SNC-Lavalin scandal

Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer

Published Thursday, February 28, 2019 12:41PM EST

OTTAWA - MPs will hold an emergency debate this evening in the aftermath of former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony before the House Justice Committee yesterday.

Wilson-Raybould said she faced high-level "veiled threats" and political interference in the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

Conservative House Leader Candice Bergen raised the request for the “urgent” debate that she said is required as the result of what was heard yesterday.

"Mr. Speaker there were hours of very credible testimony given yesterday that begs this chamber discuss this issue. We are certainly at a crisis," Bergen said.

<snip>

"This has caused a crisis of confidence in the prime minister, and in his cabinet, certainly in the clerk of the privy council, in the minister of finance, and in the current attorney general," Bergen said in making her case for the emergency debate.

Bergen was backed up by NDP MP Charlie Angus.

<snip>

Trudeau was not in question period on Thursday, (Is the seriousness sinking in? It did not appear to be last night - Loachman) and it's rare for party leaders to attend question period on a Friday. That means the next time Trudeau could face a question directly on this scandal in the House of Commons may not be until March 18, when the House resumes, unless he decides to return to Ottawa for this emergency debate this evening.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/butts-wants-to-testify-after-wilson-raybould-alleged-consistent-pressure-on-snc-lavalin-case-1.4316581

Butts wants to testify after Wilson-Raybould alleged 'consistent' pressure on SNC-Lavalin case

Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer

Published Thursday, February 28, 2019 10:35AM EST

OTTAWA - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's former top adviser Gerald Butts has written to the House of Commons Justice Committee requesting to testify on the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

In his letter to the chair of the committee, Butts says that he watched Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony - in which she alleged that she faced high-level "veiled threats" and political interference in the criminal prosecution of the Quebec construction and engineering company - and he believes that his evidence "will be of assistance" to the committee's "consideration of these matters. "

Butts says that he needs "a short period of time" to receive legal advice about producing his elements and relevant documents to the committee.

<snip>

After Wilson-Raybould's testimony wrapped up, Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer called for Trudeau’s resignation and for the RCMP to "immediately" investigate what he called "numerous examples of obstruction of justice."

In a statement on Thursday, Scheer said that he has sent a letter to RCMP Commissioner Brenda Lucki asking for an investigation to be launched.

"According to the facts as have been revealed in media reports, Parliamentary testimony from Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, and most significantly the recent comments of the former Attorney General, Canadians rightly ought to be concerned that criminal law has been violated," Scheer wrote in the letter.

The RCMP have confirmed that they have received the letter and are "reviewing" it.

<snip>

On her way out of the committee on Wednesday, Wilson-Raybould said she will continue to serve as the MP for Vancouver-Granville, and that she doesn't "anticipate being kicked out of caucus."

"I was elected by the constituents of Vancouver-Granville to represent them as a Liberal Member of Parliament," she said.

<snip>

During questioning before the House Justice Committee, Wilson-Raybould suggested that future testimony from the senior officials she had named in her opening statement would be important to the committee's work. Previous attempts from the opposition to call many of those she has named were voted down by the Liberal members on the committee.

Asked whether he'd let these people testify, Trudeau said he will respect the independence of the committee.

Throughout her testimony, she cautioned there were limitations in her ability to speak broadly about the case because of the specifics of the waiver of solicitor-client privilege and cabinet confidence that Trudeau had issued. She was not able to speak about any relevant matters that occurred after she was shuffled into veterans affairs. An NDP motion to call on Trudeau to expand the conditions of the waiver was defeated when the meeting concluded.

The opposition members on the committee were keen to hold more meetings soon, possibly next week even though the House isn’t sitting, even prior to Butts’ asking to appear. His request is likely to further bolster the desire to meet.

There is also a desire from the Conservative and NDP MPs to invite Wilson-Raybould back to add to her testimony, which she signalled openness to when she was before the committee.

The MPs on the committee are currently meeting behind closed doors to discuss “committee business,” which could include the next steps for the study, including future witnesses.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/02/27/trudeau-now-finds-himself-up-to-his-neck-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal.html

Trudeau now finds himself up to his neck in the SNC-Lavalin scandal

By Chantal Hébert

Wed., Feb. 27, 2019

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was already up to his neck in the SNC-Lavalin mess. On Wednesday, former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould pushed his head down further. It will be harder for the Liberal government to dig itself out of the deep hole she dug before the next campaign.

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 19:41:24
Who is Admiral Scheer?

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/af/Bundesarchiv_DVM_10_Bild-23-63-64%2C_Panzerschiff_%22Admiral_Scheer%22.jpg)

(https://i.cbc.ca/1.4212533.1500485916!/cpImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/16x9_780/scheer-khadr-20170714.jpg)

Spot the difference?  ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on February 28, 2019, 19:52:28
The game is afoot! Pass the whiskey please!!
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 19:58:39
You're doing yeoman service Loachman, thanks.

This line from Paul Wells in Macleans......

Quote
...her testimony before the Commons Justice Committee establishes pretty clearly that the hucksters and worse were running the show. Led by the grinning legatee who taints the Prime Ministers’ office.

That line from that source on that platform.....
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ballz on February 28, 2019, 20:32:20
Good notes have saved my bacon a few times in court.

I usually take copious point form notes during meetings leaving space below each to fill in the details later either during round table discussions or Q&As.

I am and always have been a horrible person when it comes to not taking notes. I went through an entire undergraduate degree and probably took less than 10 pages of notes. When the discussions about the CDS meeting with Butts and Telford came up and he never took notes, I actually never found it that unbelievable as I almost certainly would not have and if I wrote anything down it'd be on a napkin which would get washed out in my laundry. Admittedly I don't find myself saying "Damn, I forgot x detail, I wish I had written that down," but if someone were to ATI my notes on anything they'd probably think I deliberately burned them or forged fake meaningless scribbles assuming I could actually find anything I had written down over a month ago.

But when I come across diligent, organized note-takers like JWR or my peer who even writes down the most seemingly meaningless of all details (like the DTG of someone else's staff member's oil change... simply because it happens to be said out loud during the meeting for no apparent reason... and it ended up saving his neck), I find myself pretty envious of that quality. I think I'll go clean my room and my act up.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 28, 2019, 20:35:48
Ballz: voice notes on a smartphone. There are apps that will convert said notes to text. Cheers.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on February 28, 2019, 20:45:41
Quote
Personally, I wish the Liberal caucus members who are not part of the government (they are the majority, BTW, as only members who hold an appointment as either ministers, or in the larger sense as secretaries of state, are actually part of the government - not any backbenchers) would get the courage to actually do their job as our watchers of the government and actually oust him.

The leader of the party approves (controls) their nomination to run for Parliament. Unless a whole passel do so, and are successful, their career as a politician is over. If they are in first term, without re-election - no pension.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on February 28, 2019, 21:32:16
5 Former Attorney General ask RCMP to investigate:
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/5-former-attorney-generals-sign-letter-urging-rcmp-to-criminally-investigate-snc-lavalin-claims/
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on February 28, 2019, 21:39:57
Yes, Rifleman. That is one of the ways political parties (by which I mean the permanent direction of the parties who are full time politicos who run the show) have usurped the powers of Parliament, and of their own party members for that matter.

It's not in the constitution, which does not mention political parties anywhere, that you find the power to endorse candidates for an election.

That power, which originally rested with the actual riding associations holding a local nomination, was first moved to the central party - but upon nomination by local riding associations. Then, in 2000, under the guise of the creation in the Electoral Act of "official" parties (before this vocab. was introduced to the Act, anyone could claim to be a political party and act as such) recognition, the central party took the various riding associations power away from them by using the power they enshrined in Art 406 (2) of the Act to declare to the Chief Electoral Officer, within ten days of issuance of the writs, the identity of the person (usually the Leader) who can endorse the prospective candidates of the "official" party.

When that happened, we took the last step in moving from political parties being loose associations of like minded (from a political philosophy point of view) candidates sharing some financing machine for their local electoral needs to a centralized small cadre of politicos running a centralized machine with the sole objective not of watching and controlling the government, but of becoming the government at the expense of Parliament - now to be composed of automatons doing the government's biding instead of keeping it in check. That, BTW, is also why the job of M.P., if you don't get selected to be a minister, is getting so little regards from Canadian at this point in time. There was a lot more respect for ordinary M.P.'s up to the 70's when they were doing their proper job. That is the reason why it is also held in higher esteem in the US, where they don't expect to become part of the Government (the Executive).

It could still be reversed in Canada, but it would need the concerted effort of the M.P.'s who are not member of the actual government - even if from the "governing" party.

My personal view: to paraphrase a near closing dictum from the movie The Hunt for Red October, "A little Rebellion from time to time is not necessarily a bad thing".


Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on February 28, 2019, 21:53:30
Actually, Brihard, there is no such thing in Canada as a "elected majority government".

First in the history of Canada we have elected exactly ZERO "governments". Our government is a monarchy run hereditarily by the Queen. She appoints a Prime Minister who then selects his/her cabinet. There are no obligation whatsoever that the member of the Cabinet come from  Parliament. The only requirement is that the P.M. have and retain the confidence of the elected members of Parliament.

The job of the elected members of Parliament is to actually act as the People's representative to control government - particularly spending by the government - through legislation. Since only the P.M. and the Ministers (and I guess ministers of state and Parliamentary secretaries) form the Government, and none of the backbenchers are part of the government regardless of their political affiliation, there is no such thing as voters deciding on confidence in the P.M. and his government. The matter belongs exclusively to the elected members of Parliament, even today.

This is the very basis of Responsible Government, Westminster style, we Canadians have been gifted with as a result of Lord Durham's work. Unfortunately, the "Government" has fought back to get back apparently unlimited power, by eviscerating the powers of Parliament over the decades, particularly since the 1960's and with major gutting since the 1990's. The result is that the PMO's now believes itself unrestricted in all it does and runs roughshod over the other Ministers and Parliament as if they were mere mouthpieces.

That, BTW, is how we got where we are in this very matter. And don't believe for one moment that  threatening demotion of Ministers or of sending ordinary M.P.s of one's own political party out of valuable Committees of Parliament is NOT in the PMO's arsenal to keep everyone in line.

And Milnews, I believe that the site from the Parliament of Canada you cite, is wrong: Political parties are private organizations that have no actual existence under our constitution. The Queen, and her representative, can select anyone at all in Canada, elected or not, to form a government (BTW, it happened twice to Christie Clark in B.-C.). She is not limited in any way in who she choses to form a government. It is by tradition only that she usually (as indicated before) choses the elected leader of the party with the most seats in Parliament - simply because there is a presumption that such leader starts by having the confidence of those elected members of his/her party. It doesn't have to last: see all the changes of leaders in London, Canberra or Auckland originating in caucus.

You’re being pedantic for the sake of being pedantic. What I was said was substantially correct in the context I was speaking about. Given that much of our system of government functions according to well entrenched and understood conventions, it is correct to say that we essentially elect our governments- that’s what happen when we hand a party the majority of seats in Parliament. We do not pick the ministers at the polls, but then that’s not what I was talking about- I was referring to the GG’s role in dissolving Parliament, and why doing so in the leadup to an election would not be necessary in these circumstances, nor particularly appropriate.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on February 28, 2019, 22:08:06
https://www.abbynews.com/news/wilson-raybould-testimony-sour-grapes-abbotsf0rd-area-mp-says/

UPDATE: Abbotsford-area MP apologizes for 'inappropriate' comments

Jati Sidhu had suggested that Jody Wilson-Raybould's father was 'pulling the strings'

Tyler Olsen Feb. 28, 2019 10:36 a.m.

Abbotsford-area MP Jati Sidhu apologized in the House of Commons Thursday just hours after he told The News that the former attorney general wasn't "a team player" (A good thing, in this case, and which has garnered so much respected from the general public - Loachman) and that her father may be "pulling the strings."

In an interview with The News Thursday morning, Sidhu had dismissed Wednesday's explosive testimony by Jody Wilson-Raybould as "sour grapes," and said her discomfort with what she described as political interference in a legal decision was the result of a lack of experience.

Sidhu's comments had drawn criticism from political opponents and observers from across the country, with both NDP and Conservative MPs calling them "misogynistic." Less than three hours after speaking to The News, Sidhu apologized for his comments as Question Period drew to a close.

<snip>

But Sidhu, the first-term (Just like she is, yet he still criticized her experience level - Loachman) Liberal MP representing the sprawling Mission-Matsqui-Fraser Canyon riding, said he didn't find Wilson-Raybould's words to be alarming. Sidhu said the discussions about prosecuting SNC-Lavalin were "normal."

"It's a discussion: they do it every day, every time," he said.

Sidhu repeatedly said that if Wilson-Raybould was unhappy, she should have resigned immediately. He chalked up her discomfort to "a lack of experience," and said she’s not "a team player."

"The way she's acting, I think she couldn’t handle the stress," he said. "I think there’s somebody else behind – maybe her father – pulling the strings."

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on February 28, 2019, 22:08:17
The leader of the party approves (controls) their nomination to run for Parliament. Unless a whole passel do so, and are successful, their career as a politician is over. If they are in first term, without re-election - no pension.

Rifleman - it doesn't have to be that way.  OGBD is right.

Both the British PM (Theresa May) and the Leader of the Opposition (Jeremy Corbyn) are both running scared just now because they do not command the full support of their parties in the House, let alone commanding the House. Things are dire enough for May that she has apparently had to promise to quit as leader as soon as she successfully completes Brexit on 29 March.  Failure to complete Brexit will mean she is pushed rather than being allowed to jump.

There is nothing in parliamentary rules preventing the House finding a new Prime Minister without needing to have a general election - in London or Ottawa.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 01, 2019, 00:40:13
Once a decision is made, anything done to re-open the discussion is a form of "pressure".  Many people, to their rapidly evolving regret, don't seem to understand that or understand why they can't just explain it away by replacing "pressure" with some other word.

I eagerly anticipate the performances of all the persons closely involved who don't realize that now is an excellent time to limit their self-inflicted damage by saying as little as possible.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on March 01, 2019, 00:43:31
These guys could make a killing in Ottawa, best legal advice ever.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ADIWeDMgQ
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 01, 2019, 01:02:19
Once a decision is made, anything done to re-open the discussion is a form of "pressure".  Many people, to their rapidly evolving regret, don't seem to understand that or understand why they can't just explain it away by replacing "pressure" with some other word.

I eagerly anticipate the performances of all the persons closely involved who don't realize that now is an excellent time to limit their self-inflicted damage by saying as little as possible.

I also find it ironic that many of the very same people who loudly decry the many moral and ethical lapses of the President to the south, cannot seem to recognize or even defend similar behaviour in our own Prime Minister.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 01, 2019, 01:20:27
These guys could make a killing in Ottawa, best legal advice ever.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ADIWeDMgQ

Priceless.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 01, 2019, 03:37:18
I don't necessarily agree. Now that this issue is in the open, there will be a veritable feeding fest as media dials up every source they have in the government looking for additional tidbits, other allegations of corruption, anything they can even remotely connect to this issue (think VAdm Norman, etc).


Now that it's out in the open? Perhaps.

I can still see the media doing a tight wire walk between covering this story, looking for more dirt/leads etc.. and pulling their punches not wanting to get on the Liberals bad side should this whole thing blow over.

Damage control, risk assessment, whatever you want to call it.

Mrs Wilson-Raybould getting punted to veterans affairs minister, to me, is proof to me that going against the PMOs wishes isn't something the PM takes to kindly-from anyone. Media isn't stupid and I don't suspect they want to be under the Liberals crosshairs.


Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 01, 2019, 10:18:24
These guys could make a killing in Ottawa, best legal advice ever.
 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ADIWeDMgQ
:)

BTW, new VAC Min being sworn in this AM (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,121102.msg1563335.html#msg1563335) ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: QV on March 01, 2019, 10:24:45
One of the disturbing aspects in this was when Telford stated if JWR felt uncomfortable doing their bidding they would line up favourable opeds... and that she wasn’t interested in legalities... allegedly.  Nothing worse than corruption in high office. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 01, 2019, 10:27:22
One of the disturbing aspects in this was when Telford stated if JWR felt uncomfortable doing their bidding they would line up favourable opeds... and that she wasn’t interested in legalities... allegedly.  Nothing worse than corruption in high office.

Not surprising.  No less disturbing though about the legalities.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Strike on March 01, 2019, 12:21:13
I also find it ironic that many of the very same people who loudly decry the many moral and ethical lapses of the President to the south, cannot seem to recognize or even defend similar behaviour in our own Prime Minister.

Opposite sides of the same coin, those two.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Baden Guy on March 01, 2019, 13:00:10
Opposite sides of the same coin, those two.

Really? Not quite, Trumps in a league of his own.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 01, 2019, 13:17:33
Really? Not quite, Trumps in a league of his own.

Really?/ ....2 years under a microscope with a media that hates you and nothing.  Up here, a media you just tried to buy, who generally gush on you, and the stories just keep on coming.    So if I read you right, you're saying Mr. Trump is just that much smarter then Mr. Trudeau?? ;)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 01, 2019, 14:37:43
Really?/ ....2 years under a microscope with a media that hates you and nothing.  Up here, a media you just tried to buy, who generally gush on you, and the stories just keep on coming.    So if I read you right, you're saying Mr. Trump is just that much smarter then Mr. Trudeau?? ;)

Depends.  Fox news is pretty much what you consider the CBC to be for Trudeau.  Fox obviously does not hate Trump.  Plus Trump has the national enquirer willing to buy up people's stories about him to quash them. 

Trump is indeed in a league of his own.  no comparing him to anyone.   
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 01, 2019, 14:51:48
Really?/ ....2 years under a microscope with a media that hates you and nothing.  Up here, a media you just tried to buy, who generally gush on you, and the stories just keep on coming.    So if I read you right, you're saying Mr. Trump is just that much smarter then Mr. Trudeau?? ;)

Agreed.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 01, 2019, 14:51:57
One of the disturbing aspects in this was when Telford stated if JWR felt uncomfortable doing their bidding they would line up favourable opeds... and that she wasn’t interested in legalities... allegedly.  Nothing worse than corruption in high office.

Well that can be achieved without much effort and it is not necessarily skull duggery. They could, for example, have an article written in a political magazine by a lobbyist or academic. For legal opinions, they can contact a lawyer and have them write a legal article and have it published somewhere, then point a journalists to the article. It would make interesting reading.

Companies, activist groups, special interests and NGO's do these things all the time, is it really fair to expect that the political staff of the PMO would not, cannot or must not do the same? 

I think where perhaps we can all be disappointed is where the mainstream press corps stray away from the cardinal objective of journalism:
 “A journalist is the lookout on the bridge of the ship of state,” Joseph Pulitzer wrote. “The power to mould the future of the Republic will be in the hands of the journalists of future generations.”  

and:
"Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together. An able, disinterested, public-spirited press, with trained intelligence to know the right and courage to do it, can preserve that public virtue without which popular government is a sham and a mockery."

This objective of journalism is the defining difference between the role of the free press (know the right, preserve the virtue) and Op Eds.  Op Eds do not usually contain original reporting, and do very little to preserve and protect the virtue of the public (although that is not always the case.) The OP Ed objective may very well be to sham, but that is not journalism, it is opinion.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Technoviking on March 01, 2019, 19:10:20
Really? Not quite, Trump is in a league of his own.
You're right. As President, exactly what the US needed.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Technoviking on March 01, 2019, 19:12:35
Depends.  Fox news is pretty much what you consider the CBC to be for Trudeau.  Fox obviously does not hate Trump.  Plus Trump has the national enquirer willing to buy up people's stories about him to quash them. 

Trump is indeed in a league of his own.  no comparing him to anyone.
Fox News is roughly 50/50 on pro/anti Trump stories.

People read his tweets for themselves.

Unlike the opposition, he's not telling the electorate that they are chirping from the cheap seats, or that he's the boss. Au contraire, he tells the electorate that they are the boss.

But I get it.  Orange Man Bad.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Technoviking on March 01, 2019, 19:14:11
Back on track: these allegations have filtered into the US media and my US comrades have been asking me about it. 
I get the same media they do; I can only explain our system but have no specifics.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 02, 2019, 02:18:03
We deploy overseas to developing and rebuilding countries, who are rife with bribery, payoffs and corruption, and lecture them about democracy, honour, integrity and doing the right thing. Like we're the example.

Pretty embarrassing.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 02, 2019, 08:28:18
We deploy overseas to developing and rebuilding countries, who are rife with bribery, payoffs and corruption, and lecture them about democracy, honour, integrity and doing the right thing. Like we're the example.

Pretty embarrassing.

We’ve had corruption scandals before and we will again.  The difference between us and them is our media is free to report on it or not.  People like JWR can can take a stand against the leader and the most that happens is get demoted in cabinet and possibly thrown out of caucus and not have to fear that her family or her might disappear.  That we have a police force that can independently investigate our leaders if they do commit crimes.  That our opposition parties can publicly chastise our sitting government.

It is embarrassing but we are no where even near what those countries are.  Comparing us to them I see hyperbole at best.  No different that the Trump/dictator comparisons.

What I will agree on though is that Trudeau and his gang have given those countries something to point back at with despite the difference.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 02, 2019, 10:17:13
What I will agree on though is that Trudeau and his gang have given those countries something to point back at with despite the difference.

Which is something that China (https://globalnews.ca/news/5011691/china-canada-judicial-independence-snc-lavalin/) has already done in the Huawei case.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 02, 2019, 11:02:44
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbCa6QGs31w
EXPLAINED: Why should you care about the Justin Trudeau/ SNC Lavalin Affair? | Michelle Rempel

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-investigation-obstruction-quetions-1.5037252

As RCMP lies in wait, legal minds ponder whether SNC-Lavalin scandal warrants criminal probe

'It's not clearly not obstruction,' says an Ottawa-based defence lawyer

Catharine Tunney CBC News Posted: Mar 01, 2019 4:00 AM ET

<snip>

According to the Criminal Code, obstructing justice covers "everyone who wilfully attempts in any manner ... to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice."

In her testimony, Wilson-Raybould said she faced intense political pressure and veiled threats related to the SNC-Lavalin affair, and was warned directly by Trudeau about the negative consequences if the company faced prosecution. SNC-Lavalin was facing corruption charges for contracts in Libya and was lobbying for a remediation agreement as an alternative to criminal prosecution.

Former Conservative justice minister Peter MacKay said there's enough from Wilson-Raybould's testimony to warrant further examination - either through a public inquiry or a criminal investigation.

"What's happened here is that somebody in the office gave her the impression there would be consequences if she was not to follow the instructions, and when that didn't happen we know that she did lose her job," he said.

"I come back to the definition of the Criminal Code section which speaks of perverting justice, it speaks of interference, it speaks of in some way trying to shape the outcome of a prosecution, and the elements appear to be there."

Criminal defence lawyer Joseph Neuberger said an obstruction of justice charge wouldn't be hard to prove in court. He pointed to a meeting Gerry Butts, the prime minister's former principal secretary, had with Wilson-Raybould's trusted chief of staff Jessica Prince where he allegedly said, "There is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference."

"If that is not a smoking gun when it comes to actual interference and obstruction, I don't know what is," said Neuberger.

"This has stepped over the bounds of inappropriate; it has certainly crossed into the realm of criminal conduct."

Spratt said he doesn't think the case is a "slam dunk," for police and prosecutors, but "it's starting to sound a lot like obstruction."

Canadian Civil Liberties Association executive director Michael Bryant, who in the first few days of the scandal called for a police investigation, now says this issue isn't as clear cut.

"The evidence for obstruction of justice requires evidence of intent. So you need to have evidence of the prime minister intended to obstruct justice, and we didn't hear any of that," he said Thursday.

<snip>

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/01/four-important-questions-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal.html

Four important questions in the SNC-Lavalin scandal

By Chantal Hébert Fri., March 1, 2019

MONTREAL-Another week of political drama on Parliament Hill finds the SNC-Lavalin affair no closer to closure. In the aftermath of Jody Wilson-Raybould's appearance at the Commons justice committee, even the future of the prime minister as Liberal leader has become fair game for speculation.

If anything, the former attorney general's testimony has left many Canadians with more questions than definitive answers.

Here are four more:

1. A central assumption in Wilson-Raybould's testimony is that given the same facts, any ethical attorney general would have come to the same conclusion and refused to use his or her discretion to overturn the public prosecutor's decision to pursue a criminal trial against SNC-Lavalin. But is that really the case?

To this day, her successor, David Lametti, along with the prime minister, has kept open the option of issuing a directive to spare the engineering firm the risk of a criminal conviction and a 10-year ban on bidding for federal contracts by offering it a deferred prosecution agreement in lieu of a trial.

This is a difference of opinion at least as fundamental to the understanding of this saga as each side's view of the pressures that attended Wilson-Raybould's refusal to take the route of a negotiated plea.

Inasmuch as she did not or could not share her rationale for declining to redirect the course of the federal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin and for resisting all overtures to reconsider her decision, it is hard to come to an informed judgment as to whether her thinking on this file was as unassailable as she makes it out to be.

One can doubt that it was and still find that the political lobbying she was subjected to was inappropriate.

2. The SNC-Lavalin file commanded an impressive amount of high-level political attention. But would an NDP or Conservative government have been any less responsive to the firm's lobbying?

It is no accident that in their French-language interviews, Conservative and New Democrat MPs from Quebec have been at pains to stress that their parties are not on a vendetta against SNC-Lavalin.

With 9,000 Canadian jobs potentially on the line, any responsible federal government would have taken the time to carefully weigh the option of mitigating the possible damage to the firm's future following a criminal conviction.

That is not to say a Conservative or an NDP government would have come to the same conclusion as Trudeau. But until allegations of political interference surfaced and even as they had been apprised by SNC-Lavalin of its efforts to secure a remediation agreement, neither party had shown any appetite for a fight with the Liberals over the issue.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5012770/jody-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-david-lametti/

March 1, 2019 4:18 pm

Lametti says he didn't know Wilson-Raybould rejected cutting SNC-Lavalin a deal when he took over

By Amanda Connolly

Attorney General David Lametti says he didn't know that his predecessor, Jody Wilson-Raybould, had already made a decision not to cut SNC-Lavalin a deal to avoid criminal trial when he took over the post and began learning about the matter before him.

He was also mum on whether knowing that would keep him from reversing the decision. (Reversing the decision would not look good for the Liberals. This is the second trap that they have set for themselves, not including the scandal and cover-up themselves. The first was Jody Wilson-Raybould, in that Trudeau cannot eject her from caucus without the appearance of further vindictiveness and meanness, yet she will still be there to taunt him [even by doing nothing] and possibly building support for herself within the ranks of Liberal MPs. - Loachman)

<snip>

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/03/01/caught-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal-canadas-top-civil-servant-should-help-us-understand-his-job-expert-says.html

By Alex Boutilier Ottawa Bureau
Fri., March 1, 2019

OTTAWA - Canada's top public servant should explain how he balances his role as the non-partisan head of the bureaucracy and the prime minister's deputy, according to one expert on the country's public service.

Prof. Donald Savoie, one of Canada's preeminent scholars on the public service, said that following reforms initiated in 1989, the role of the Privy Council clerk - the nation's top bureaucrat - has changed and he or she now walks a delicate line between public service neutrality and responsibility to the government of the day, whatever its stripe.   

Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick - who has faced allegations of partisanship and opposition calls for his resignation over his testimony and role in the SNC-Lavalin affair - should tell Canadians how he manages to strike that balance, Savoie said.

"I think he owes it to the public service to explain how he squares the ... roles," Savoie, who teaches public administration at the Université of Moncton, told the Star on Thursday.

"I would be careful, however, to say that Wernick became partisan. I don't think we can accuse Wernick of being partisan … but I would say, though, I'm sure he has an explanation," Savoie added.

"So let's hear it, how he squares the role of deputy minister to the prime minister with his other … responsibilities."

<snip>

Because his testimony largely matched the Liberal government's version of events at the time, and because he suggested a Conservative senator should be condemned for using violent political imagery in a speech, pundits accused him of partisan support for the Trudeau government.

But the modern position of clerk actually combines three roles, Savoie said: the secretary of cabinet, the head of the non-partisan public service, and the deputy minister - or top bureaucrat - to the prime minister.

The three roles were combined into one position in the Public Service 2000 under reforms initiated by then-prime minister Brian Mulroney in 1989 - part of a reimaging of the role and function of the public service that took place in the United States and the United Kingdom around the same time.


It was a monumental shift that public governance researchers are still writing about today. One of the criticisms of the reforms was it encouraged senior public servants to engage in "promiscuous partisanship" in the words of the late scholar Peter Aucoin - a blurring of the line between the rough-and-tumble of politics and the dispassionate execution of the government's vision.

Savoie said he didn't agree with the changes in 1989 and he doesn't agree with them now.

"I'm not sure it was ever tenable" for the three responsibilities to rest with one person, Savoie said.

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 02, 2019, 11:12:04
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/canada/trudeau-scandal-snc-lavalin.html?action=click&module=Well&pgtype=Homepage&section=World

By Catherine Porter and Ian Austen

March 1, 2019

TORONTO - Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada promised a fresh approach to politics, one that was based on openness, decency and liberalism.

Now he is embroiled in a scandal involving accusations of back-room deal-making and bullying tactics, all to support a Canadian company accused of bribing the Libyan government when it was run by the dictator Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Canadian newspapers are filled with outrage and opposition parties are calling for a resignation. Elections are still seven months away, but some members of Mr. Trudeau's own governing party fear the scandal has armed opposition parties with rich campaign fodder against its leader, who promised "sunny ways" in politics.

"This is a huge, huge blow to Justin Trudeau's personal brand and Justin Trudeau's promise of doing politics differently," said Shachi Kurl, the executive director of the Angus Reid Institute, a nonprofit polling firm based in Vancouver.

<snip>

But so much of politics is appearances, and the optics are terrible - of a self-described feminist, who had promised a new, open and transparent way of governing, sending aides described as his henchmen to gang up on an Indigenous woman in efforts to bend her will.

Ms. Wilson-Raybould's appointment to justice minister had seemed proof to many that Mr. Trudeau was serious about correcting the country's wrongs against its Indigenous population and treating Indigenous people as respected partners in the country, as he had promised during the election.

Now, that legacy is in question because of Ms. Wilson-Raybould's demotion to the post of veterans affairs minister, which she quit last week.

"Reconciliation also means respecting the voices of Indigenous people," said Sheila North, a former Indigenous leader in northern Manitoba. "This whole display has shown, in the end, money and power is more important than building reconciliation."

<snip>

Many of Mr. Trudeau's opponents are saying that the entire controversy proves that Mr. Trudeau, who appointed the country's first gender-balanced cabinet, is a "fake feminist" who uses women instead of supporting them.

"Why are not all women in that caucus, and their so-called feminist allies, calling for the prime minister's resignation?" said Michelle Rempel, a Conservative member of Parliament in the House of Commons.

<snip>

"People who are predicting the demise of Justin Trudeau or the Liberals are not making safe bets," said Emmett Macfarlane, a professor of political science at the University of Waterloo. Much depends on what happens over the next few months and whether the prime minister's office is able to ward off a full-blown public inquiry into the scandal.

"If the election was next month, it would probably be devastating and it would directly shape the campaign," Professor Macfarlane said. "It's hard to say if this will be on Canadians' minds in August or September."

Meanwhile, Mr. Trudeau has seven months to regain what he can of his reputation and hope the scandal fades from voters' minds by the time they return to the polls.

"He has to stop any pretense and veneer that he's the 'sunny ways' guy or Mr. Clean," said Ms. Kurl, the executive director of the nonprofit polling firm.

She added, "Now he'll have to compete in the old-style politics."

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/01/world/canada/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin.html

Who's Investigating Justin Trudeau - and What Do They Hope to Find?

By Ian Austen

March 1, 2019

<snip>

Here's a look at who's seeking answers, what they could uncover, and who else might still take a peek:

What's Already Underway

- Parliamentary hearings: The House of Commons' Standing Committee on Justice is where Ms. Wilson-Raybould finally broke her silence this week. It's also where other key players are set to appear, notably Gerald Butts, Mr. Trudeau's friend who stepped down last month as his top political adviser amid the scandal.

But the justice committee isn't set up to run a full-scale investigation. It has neither a team of people digging up evidence, nor the power to order up internal government documents.

And, as the opposition has repeatedly pointed out this week, the Liberals control the committee. This makes it unlikely that anything the panel does will inflict much harm on Mr. Trudeau.

- An ethics investigation: After a request from two New Democratic Party lawmakers, the conflict of interest and ethics commissioner, Mario Dion, is also on the case. But by law, he can only look for possible conflicts of interest.

Simply applying pressure for political advantage doesn't amount to such a conflict, earlier commissioners have ruled. Past investigations by the ethics commissioner's office have dragged on for more than a year, and the office has no power to order serious sanctions.

What May Come Next

- A criminal investigation: The Conservative leader Andrew Scheer and others have asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to look into possible obstruction of justice. The police force, citing standard policy, will not confirm whether it's started an investigation or plans to do so.

And there's a good chance that we'll never know whether the Mounties made Mr. Trudeau the target of an investigation. The reason goes back to 2005, when the force sent a fax to a New Democratic member of Parliament confirming that it was investigating then-Finance Minister Ralph Goodale in connection with illegal stock trading. Arriving in the midst of a federal election campaign, the fax exploded like a bomb. Mr. Goodale was cleared; a public servant in the finance department later pleaded guilty to insider trading charges.

An investigation later found no fault with the police force, but the Mounties were widely criticized as having meddled in politics. They have been more circumspect about politically sensitive investigations since then.

Today, as Mr. Trudeau's public safety minister, Mr. Goodale oversees the Mounties.

- An independent public inquiry: Jagmeet Singh, the leader of the New Democrats, was the first to push for an independent special commission to look into the affair, and the idea has support from other opposition parties.

Mr. Trudeau has taken the position that the Justice Committee hearings and the conflict of interest investigation are all that's needed. (For the very reasons stated above, no doubt. - Loachman)

An inquiry is the least appealing option for the Liberals, who remember all too well the Gomery Commission. Then-Prime Minister Paul Martin meant for it to clear the air around the Liberals after a corruption scandal involving the previous Liberal government. But it backfired. Evidence presented at the inquiry only highlighted the corruption, and Mr. Martin's loss in the 2006 election was widely attributed to the hearings.

Any inquiry into the current scandal is unlikely to be finished before October's vote. But the hearings would certainly provide the kind of publicity the Liberals don't want leading up to, and during, an election campaign.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal/2019/03/01/trudeau-refuses-opposition-demand-to-recall-parliament-to-debate-snc-lavalin-affair.html

Trudeau refuses opposition demand to recall Parliament over SNC-Lavalin affair

By Tonda MacCharles Ottawa Bureau

Fri., March 1, 2019

OTTAWA - The Trudeau government has refused an opposition demand to recall Parliament to deal with the SNC-Lavalin affair, and is setting the stage to counter Jody Wilson-Raybould's allegations of improper political meddling in the company's criminal trial.

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 02, 2019, 11:13:05
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-trudeau-virtuecrats-come-tumbling-down

Rex Murphy: The Trudeau virtuecrats come tumbling down
Jody Wilson-Raybould, in her person and conduct, is all the Liberal government was supposed to be about

March 1, 2019 3:04 PM EST

Justin Trudeau has the look of the high school hero who's just fallen off his snowboard in front of all the twirling cheerleaders.

It's been a hard week for Mr. Trudeau. It must have been even harder for the Gender Analytics Team down in the boiler room of the Department of Public Works (it's next to the Deliverology stables, just past the Memorial to Proportional Representation). They've had to parse Jody Wilson-Raybould's fierce testimony and sequence it with the government's equity-feminism.

No one has sung hymns to strong, independent women more fervently than Mr. Trudeau. It doesn't wear well that the strongest and most independent woman in his entire cabinet no long feels she can, with honour, sit in that same cabinet room with him.

There'll be no more roundtables with Tina Brown and Gloria Steinem. Ivanka Trump will cross the street when she sees him coming.

It doesn't wear well that a strong, independent woman, determined to secure the mast of the rule of law, is put under siege for months by a train of flacks and aides, principal secretaries and chiefs of staff - supplemented by the Black Knight of the Clerk of the Privy Council - to work a deal, to finesse, to go around that rule of law because "… there's an election in Quebec ... (and) I'm the member for Papineau." It doesn't wear well that a strong, independent woman was subject to threats, veiled and not-so-veiled, effectively harried and harassed because she refused to politically oblige the big boys in the PMO. The Feminist-in-Chief took a massive hit.

Mr. Trudeau scooted past the "Kokanee Grope," but that involved a mere reporter. And besides, as he so grandly assured the world at the time, that incident provided us with a "collective awakening" that different "people experience things differently," an insight into human psychology locked in darkness until that very moment. This was Jordan Peterson-level mentoring.

But the Jody Wilson-Raybould clash, as we used to say at home, is an entirely different kettle of fish. Here was no allegedly wandering hand, but a "consistent and sustained … inappropriate effort" to warp a decision of the attorney general of Canada in a matter of criminal charges against a Quebec company.

When her principles came up against his expediency, what was a male-feminist Galahad to do? Why he acted like the oldest, white-haired, cigar-chomping boy in the oldest boys' club that was. He demoted her. And during the interval, when she was bound to silence, he went about variously telling her story for her - even to the point of (I hate the term, but it's a nugget in Mr. Trudeau's set) "mansplaining" that her staying in cabinet "spoke for itself."

Hours later, she left. That, too, spoke for itself. Ever so much clearly. Ironically, her departure might be the prelude to and necessary condition for the prime minister's own.

Now in an ordinary government, none of this would matter. In a business-as-usual, this-is-how-we've-always-done-politics, principles-be-dammed, we've-got-work-to-do government, who'd care? But this is a Trudeau government, where feminist values and the purest sensitivity to women are as sparkling diamonds in the firmament of righteousness and sanctimony.

This is a government that lives and thrives on its profession of vast moral pretensions. It is the government forever preaching of values, of moral aspiration, of doing things differently, of real gender equity, of promoting feminism, of openness and transparency, of nourishing the Earth and all her fuzzy creatures; this is a government of every tender, soft, progressive value known to peoplekind. Mr. Trudeau is its brand and the brand is everything.

This is a government of virtuecrats, or it is nothing. That's the problem. Live by the image, die by the image. Play by the symbol, fall by the symbol.

Four hours of testimony on Wednesday afternoon went like a torpedo through a castle of glass. The details are known and in a hundred columns by now. Jody Wilson-Raybould, in her person and conduct, is all the Trudeau government was supposed to be about.

She is a superbly accomplished woman. If role models mean anything, she has to be a luminous star for every young girl and boy in every First Nation in the country. For she has soared to the highest pinnacle of political power of any, ever, of her community. She sat, till last week, in the chair Lester Pearson offered to Pierre Trudeau to bring that sultan into the national story. To coin a phrase, a fearful symmetry indeed.

Truth and Reconciliation is going to be a hard sell if a government leadership that came to power preaching feminism and the utter moral urgency of Aboriginal concerns works now to bring the greatest exemplar of both categories down. There will be two messages if it does. That feminism counts only when it doesn't get in the way of politics. And that respect for Aboriginals works as a brand but not as a practice.

If the attempt is made, it will not be an easy glide down for Mr. Trudeau. For Jody Wilson-Raybould has shown her qualities.

There is more steel in that woman than ever came out of Hamilton. Her mind is keen, her will is her own, her moral centre assured and determined. These qualities are the very anti-matter of spin-doctors and crisis-management shops, kryptonite for the bleating flacks and the sweating elves of the PMO talking-points foundry.

Mr. Trudeau has spoken of Wilson-Raybould's presentation to the justice committee. "I have taken knowledge of her testimony..." - an odd locution, sounding like something from the Book of Exodus as translated by the Kielburger brothers. "... but there are still reflections to have on next steps" - which is, we must hope, his way of saying he disagrees.

But really, it's just mush anyway you look at it. Much like Chrystia Freeland's comment "I believe … she spoke her truth," (accent on "her" you can be sure), which is a precious piece of equivocation even for a diplomat. Does no one in this government know what a real sentence sounds like?

Mush won't melt steel. Wilson-Raybould has facts, details, specifics and principles. A deadpan face and urgently low-voiced platitudes will not prevail against them.

The fate of the Trudeau government now hangs on a contest between character and image. I expect they've already put out the call for all the king's horses and all the king's men ....
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 02, 2019, 11:28:09
My predictions are:

1.  that the new AG will order a DPA based on "revised legal advice provided to the Director of Public Prosecutions";

2.  that the Gerald butts will testify there was no wrongdoing and Clerk of the Privy Concil will, once again stress that in light of the DPA being issued, it's clear that the influence exerted by the PMO et al on JWR has been shown to be wholly appropriate; and

3. by the time the House reconvenes, this will have been overtaken by events and the release of the pre-election budget full of goodies will have returned the shine to the Trudeau brand.


.... except for the wild cards of the Norman trial, China and JWR making a follow up statement.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 02, 2019, 11:57:32
Your first two predictions would not surprise me, but, with recent articles in the press about our rapidly-worsening financial situation, I don't think that there will be much ability to throw many "goodies" around, and many journalists will probably not speak/type kindly about such a hollow and withered carrot.

And on the matter at hand, I doubt that the press would just say "Right. Silly us. Everything's good now. Do carry on", though.

I'm pretty sure that he's lost them forever, at this point - and a good chunk of the general public as well.

It's not just the corruption and pressure/bullying. It's also the sordid cover-up, which is still ongoing:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/its-time-for-justin-trudeau-to-put-his-cards-on-the-table/

It's time for Justin Trudeau to put his cards on the table

Andrew MacDougall: Until everyone involved in the scandal testifies - not just Gerry Butts - this looks like a cover-up, not a transparent process

by Andrew MacDougall Mar 1, 2019

It's another day, and another defence for the Liberals on SNC-Lavalin.

For those of you who are algorithmically shielded from bad Liberal news, we've now moved from "false" after the story broke weeks ago to "yeah, well, you might think 11 people having multiple meetings or phone calls with the non-partisan attorney general or her staff over four months is pressure" after Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony.

Struggling to draw a line - any line - under the controversy, Trudeau and the Liberals are now pushing respect for the ethics commissioner and the House of Commons standing committee on justice and human rights like it's a new religion.

(As an aside: imagine how poorly things have to be going to point to an office that has already found you guilty of breaking the law once, over the Aga Khan vacation.)

Only they're not letting anyone preach.

Will the justice committee be hearing from Trudeau? No. How about Katie Telford? No. Bill Morneau? No. Ben Chin? No. Mathieu Bouchard? No. Elder Marques? No. Jessica Prince? No. Amy Archer? Sadly, she's a 'no,' too.

You'll note the above list doesn't include Gerry Butts, the Prime Minister's (former?) right-hand man, who yesterday tweeted out a letter to justice committee chair Anthony Housefather requesting an appearance. Butts will now appear on March 6, pending the sorting of some legal advice.

But why does Butts - who people jokingly (?) call Prime Minister Butts - get to appear, but not any of the other people accused of inappropriate behaviour in Wilson-Raybould's testimony? If you were trying to prove to Canadians you weren't interested in getting at the truth, this would be a good way of doing it.

Not that questioning Butts is without value.

We still, for example, don't know why Butts suddenly quit his post on Feb. 18. There didn't appear to be anything lethal about his conduct in the public domain to that point. Indeed, his resignation letter went out of its way to admit no fault, although Wilson-Raybould's testimony later contradicted his take. After being warned by Jessica Prince, Wilson-Raybould's chief of staff, that his Dec. 18 intervention on SNC was "interference", the former attorney general has Butts allegedly replying: "Jess, there is no solution here that doesn't involve some interference." Did he say that? And what does it mean (other than the obvious)?

Butts will surely rebut that point, but it would also be good to hear him on any conversations surrounding Wilson-Raybould's meeting with Trudeau the day ahead of her resignation from cabinet (presuming he was there). This is increasingly looking like an area that MPs on the committee must explore.

The circumstances surrounding her resignation certainly appear important to Wilson-Raybould. Once Trudeau signed the order-in-council allowing her to testify, Wilson-Raybould quickly issued a letter pointing out it didn't release her to speak about the events after her shuffle to veterans affairs. Why didn't Trudeau include that period? And what makes it so important to Wilson-Raybould? We don't know.

From committee testimony and/or the media, we do know Wilson-Raybould was shuffled from Justice a few short weeks after her last conversations on SNC with Butts, Katie Telford and Michael Wernick, the clerk of the privy council, who is alleged to have told Wilson-Raybould, "I think [Trudeau] is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that."

Well, getting rid of a recalcitrant attorney general is certainly a way to "get it done," isn't it?

And it doesn't take much of a conspiracy theorist to equate the final Dec. 19 'no' with the subsequent shuffle, as Wilson-Raybould herself did, despite Trudeau apparently telling her it had nothing to do with it.

That impression probably didn't last long. Especially as Wilson-Raybould later found out, her deputy minister at Justice, Nathalie Drouin, had been told by Wernick to prepare her successor, David Lametti, for a conversation with Trudeau on SNC. Reporting now also confirms Lametti met with senior PMO staff at the January cabinet retreat to discuss SNC. It hardly sounds like the centre was happy with the status quo.

Was Wilson-Raybould, as veterans affairs minister, aware her oft-challenged decision on SNC was about to be revisited and reversed? Is that why the first Globe story appeared? Until Wilson-Raybould is granted permission to speak about that period of time, we won't know. (But I suspect another exclusive might soon appear in the Globe and Mail should Trudeau choose to keep her under wraps.)

What light can Butts shine on this period? What light could Telford? Until they both speak - until they all speak - nothing we've yet heard can be placed in its proper context. Until they all speak it looks like a cover-up, and not trust in a transparent process.

It's simply not good enough for Trudeau to blather on about jobs and dismiss Wilson-Raybould's "characterization" without rounding out the picture himself. It's only a fraction of the story; she has played only the cards he's allowed her to play.

It's time for Trudeau to let everyone put their cards on the table.

The justice committee should begin by inviting everyone named in Wilson-Raybould's testimony. And then they should invite the former attorney general back to speak freely about her time at veterans affairs and her resignation from that portfolio.

Until Trudeau does that, anything that comes out of his mouth is a PR exercise meant to obscure the truth.

Edited to add further commentary in my opening reply to Haggis.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 02, 2019, 12:09:44
http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/e577e6a7-4ba9-450a-848a-fa83f5c2d548__7C___0.html?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=Internal+Share&utm_content=Screen

Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse

TRUDEAU ET LE « JODYGATE »

Short Form:

English Canadian media colleagues are working themselves into a lather because politicians discuss politics.

Trudeau's fundamental problem is that he appointed a rookie to an important position "because 2016".

Move along folks nothing to see here.

Oh, and by the way, we can continue to disregard Alberta and their "oleoducs".  They're just reverting back to their conservative roots.

It's hard not to think that Hugh MacLennan (https://www.amazon.com/Two-Solitudes-Hugh-MacLennan-ebook/dp/B07DGLVTLM) is still worth a read.

PS.  This will all blow over because Canadians will be voting on values ..... and given a choice between conservative and liberal values they won't choose conservatives.  per Mme Gagnon.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 02, 2019, 12:12:16
Quote
Will the justice committee be hearing from Trudeau? No. How about Katie Telford? No. Bill Morneau? No. Ben Chin? No. Mathieu Bouchard? No. Elder Marques? No. Jessica Prince? No. Amy Archer? Sadly, she's a 'no,' too.

You'll note the above list doesn't include Gerry Butts, the Prime Minister's (former?) right-hand man, who yesterday tweeted out a letter to justice committee chair Anthony Housefather requesting an appearance. Butts will now appear on March 6, pending the sorting of some legal advice.

But why does Butts - who people jokingly (?) call Prime Minister Butts - get to appear, but not any of the other people accused of inappropriate behaviour in Wilson-Raybould's testimony?

Because they're guilty and the Liberals think Canadians are stupid, I'd say.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on March 02, 2019, 12:41:23
http://plus.lapresse.ca/screens/e577e6a7-4ba9-450a-848a-fa83f5c2d548__7C___0.html?utm_medium=Twitter&utm_campaign=Internal+Share&utm_content=Screen

Lysiane Gagnon in La Presse

TRUDEAU ET LE « JODYGATE »

Short Form:

English Canadian media colleagues are working themselves into a lather because politicians discuss politics.

Trudeau's fundamental problem is that he appointed a rookie to an important position "because 2016".

Move along folks nothing to see here.

Oh, and by the way, we can continue to disregard Alberta and their "oleoducs".  They're just reverting back to their conservative roots.

It's hard not to think that Hugh MacLennan (https://www.amazon.com/Two-Solitudes-Hugh-MacLennan-ebook/dp/B07DGLVTLM) is still worth a read.

PS.  This will all blow over because Canadians will be voting on values ..... and given a choice between conservative and liberal values they won't choose conservatives.  per Mme Gagnon.

I thought that your summary was a bit strident until I read the actual article and found that you were actually very reserved in your interpretation. Gagnon's article drips with sarcasm and condescension. I don't think she has the mood of the country right on this, especially her view of Ontario:

Quote
But in Ontario, as the Ford government gets out of hand, the Liberals have a good chance of doing well, because they have strong roots there.

Ontario (and the west) generally considers Liberal governments as self-serving and Quebec toadies but from time to time they get concerned that PCs are so secretive, authoritarian, draconian (pick your adjective) that they forget just how crooked the Liberals really are. Not so now. The true face of the extent to which Liberals will go to favour their Quebec base and the extent to which they will go to protect their self interest there is on wide open display. It's no small thing that they've thrown an aboriginal woman under the bus in the process.

My guess is that the Liberal's "strong roots" in Ontario will flee to the NDP and to a lesser extent to the Conservatives or simply not show up to vote.

 :2c:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 02, 2019, 12:45:47
>1. A central assumption in Wilson-Raybould's testimony is that given the same facts, any ethical attorney general would have come to the same conclusion and refused to use his or her discretion to overturn the public prosecutor's decision to pursue a criminal trial against SNC-Lavalin. But is that really the case?

But we don't have "the same facts".  We have heavily inflected facts, not the least because of all the "information" introduced to try and sway the decision made based on "the same facts" that were available at the time.  Any new conclusion/exercise of discretion would be tainted by all that has happened since the decision was made.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 02, 2019, 14:21:10
I keep repeating, hopefully people now believe: The Liberals do what's best for the LPC, not what's best Canada.

Why doesn't a journalists ask the Liberals that if they wanted to save 9,000 jobs, why didn't they do anything for Alberta or, for that matter Sears?

A friendly op-ed.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/03/01/snc-lavalin-controversy-just-put-it-to-bed.html

SNC-Lavalin controversy? Just put it to bed - By HEATHER MALLICK - Star Columnist -  March 1, 2019
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ModlrMike on March 02, 2019, 15:46:17
If the new AG directs the DPP to issue a DPA, then this will only confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right.

Hint: Hamlet a1 s4.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: YZT580 on March 02, 2019, 16:23:11
If the new AG directs the DPP to issue a DPA, then this will only confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right.

Hint: Hamlet a1 s4.
or maybe PT. Barnum.  Something about our birthrate and suckers
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 02, 2019, 16:54:15
If When the new AG directs the DPP to issue a DPA, then this will only confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right.

FTFY.  ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Old Sweat on March 02, 2019, 17:11:44
I may be becoming pollyanna-like in my old age, but I cannot see what kind of political calculation would lead the Liberals to override the DPP, leading as it would to the conclusion there is one law for their friends and another for everybody else.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on March 02, 2019, 17:24:17
I may be becoming pollyanna-like in my old age, but I cannot see what kind of political calculation would lead the Liberals to override the DPP, leading as it would to the conclusion there is one law for their friends and another for everybody else.

I think that ship already sailed, sadly.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 02, 2019, 17:31:29
I may be becoming pollyanna-like in my old age, but I cannot see what kind of political calculation would lead the Liberals to override the DPP, leading as it would to the conclusion there is one law for their friends and another for everybody else.

I think you're right OS.

They won't over ride the DPP.

They will just declare that a conviction shouldn't bar a company from dealing with the Government.  After all that law wasn't a real law.  It was only a Harper law brought in in 2015.  A legality.   It just doesn't matter  ;D

Quote
Liberals want ‘flexibility’ on federal integrity rules — which could help SNC-Lavalin
By Andy Blatchford and Jim Bronskill   The Canadian Press

OTTAWA — Canada’s minister in charge of procurement says the Trudeau government wants the federal regime for dealing with companies that have integrity problems to be more flexible — a change that could help beleaguered SNC-Lavalin.


The engineering and construction giant faces corruption and fraud charges over allegations it used bribery while pursuing business in Libya. If the company is convicted, the updated integrity regime could mean a lighter punishment.

The current rules disqualify offenders from receiving federal contracts for 10 years — known as “debarment” — though in certain cases the period can be trimmed down to five years.

The regime was designed to ensure the Canadian government only does business with ethical companies in Canada and abroad.

This week, Public Services Minister Carla Qualtrough said the updated policy, if adopted, will still carry a potential ban from federal contracts of up to a decade, depending on a number of factors including the severity of the transgression.

But a draft of the new scheme released last fall shows there is no minimum ineligibility period.

The integrity regime, which has been in place since 2015, is an administrative tool guiding government decisions on which suppliers to buy from — not a criminal process. Qualtrough said once the new policy is in place all integrity regime decisions will be handled, without ministerial oversight, by an independent authority known as the registrar of ineligibility and suspension.

https://globalnews.ca/news/5010714/liberals-inegrity-snc-lavalin/

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 02, 2019, 17:34:00
And by the way - based on the way appointments happen in this country - are we really any better off with an "independent" Attorney-General or an "independent" "registrar of ineligibility and suspension"?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ModlrMike on March 02, 2019, 18:43:01
If the new AG directs the DPP to issue a DPA, then this will only confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right.

Hint: Hamlet a1 s4.

I realize that I didn't use enough acronyms. What I meant to say was:

If the PMO asks the new AG to direct the DPP to issue a DPA in favour of SNC, then this will only vindicate JWR and confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right, and that the LPC is not to be trusted.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 02, 2019, 18:57:46
If the PMO asks the new AG to direct the DPP to issue a DPA in favour of SNC, then this will only vindicate JWR and confirm in people's minds that Shakespeare was right, and that the LPC is not to be trusted.

Except that the Liberals (the "Government") will spin it in such a way as to illustrate that JWR was wrong, the influence upon her was to encourage her to right that wrong and, when she erroneously refused, she had to be disciplined.  The PM, PMO and PCO did the right thing and they should be trusted in October to do the right thing again.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 02, 2019, 19:57:07
And proving yet again that for the Libs, arms-Length relationship rules are more honour'd in the breach than the observance.

 :nana:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 02, 2019, 23:00:14
Trudeau talks about Steven Harper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpxslXGGqEw
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 03, 2019, 00:04:20
If "rules" are to mean anything, SNC can't be granted a DPA.  SNC has to be an example to all other corporations - a DPA is a possibility, but do not take it for granted.  If SNC gets a DPA, it looks like a big corporation getting a sweet deal it lobbied for itself.  And, any corporation in a similar predicament in future will ask (very publicly, so that the voters in its area of influence understand) "why them and not us"?  And, politically that latter question will be interpreted as "why QC and not [somewhere-not-QC]?"
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 03, 2019, 09:23:04
Just so we get this straight, while SNC's headquarter is in Montreal, there are more SNC employees working in the other provinces than in the province of Quebec. In fact there are almost as many working out of Toronto as there are in Montreal.

And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Journeyman on March 03, 2019, 09:55:18
Just so we get this straight, while SNC's headquarter is in Montreal, there are more SNC employees working in the other provinces than in the province of Quebec. In fact there are almost as many working out of Toronto as there are in Montreal.

And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.
If you're hoping to garner sympathy for SNC by appealing to our love of Toronto….

       :rofl:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 03, 2019, 10:12:01
Not at all.

I just suspected that many a people in here that are making this a "Quebec" privilege issue may be from TO the good (since bashing anything Montreal they can't steal is in their DNA) and that just perhaps they didn't recognize the they were shooting themselves in the foot at the same time.

 ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 03, 2019, 10:25:12
Not at all.

I just suspected that many a people in here that are making this a "Quebec" privilege issue may be from TO the good (since bashing anything Montreal they can't steal is in their DNA) and that just perhaps they didn't recognize the they were shooting themselves in the foot at the same time.

 ;D

Actually, if JWR is to be believed, Trudeau and Company made it a Quebec issue. If her testimony is correct, he is the one who was concerned about the electoral ramifications for the Liberals, in Quebec, specifically.

I recognize that SNC has employees everwhere in Canada. I also recognize that they are hardly the only engineering firm in Canada and that if something bad happens to them, their bones will get picked over by their competitors and life will go on....
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 03, 2019, 10:27:58
Actually, if JWR is to be believed, Trudeau and Company made it a Quebec issue. If her testimony is correct, he is the one who was concerned about the electoral ramifications for the Liberals, in Quebec, specifically.

I recognize that SNC has employees everwhere in Canada. I also recognize that they are hardly the only engineering firm in Canada and that if something bad happens to them, their bones will get picked over by their competitors and life will go on....

That's for sure. And it completely belies the "economic consequences" argument.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 03, 2019, 10:46:42
And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.

Which can be blamed on Liberals.

Win!!!
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 03, 2019, 10:47:16
Actually, if JWR is to be believed, Trudeau and Company made it a Quebec issue. If her testimony is correct, he is the one who was concerned about the electoral ramifications for the Liberals, in Quebec, specifically.

Right there is, what I believe, the Liberal's "vital ground".  They will have to undermine her credibility, shred her account of events and prove her wrong.  That, again, is why I believe a DPA will be forthcoming.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 03, 2019, 10:49:38
Which can be blamed on Liberals.

Win!!!

Sorry,...still gotta kick Mike Harris's crew in the nuts for anything 407 related.   Though in all fairness, it would still be a simple 2 lane highway had it remained in the hands of the Ontario Govt, as they siphoned off the profits for important things like 'art' nights, rubber ducks, etc....
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 03, 2019, 12:43:02
I'm talking about today, not back then.

If the Bob Rae Toll Way gets shut down because SNC-Lavalin collapses, that's on Trudeau's actions, not Mike Harris.

Today's media sampling begins:

https://www.wellandtribune.ca/news-story/9202509-strategists-weigh-in-on-snc-lavalin-affair-i-don-t-think-public-opinion-is-set-on-this-/

Strategists weigh in on SNC-Lavalin affair: "I don't think public opinion is set on this'

News 05:56 PM by Robert Cribb

The political bombshell launched Wednesday by Jody Wilson-Raybould created new possibilities and pitfalls in the ramp-up to a federal election, say senior strategists.

"No one has seen anything like it," said Conservative strategist Jaime Watt. "The question is what does everybody do now?"

For the Tories, the gift of Liberal scandal delivered by the then attorney-general's allegations of political interference against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his staff prompted a swift call by Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer for Trudeau's resignation. Wilson-Raybould told a Commons committee about "sustained" efforts to persuade her to overrule the public prosecutions director and offer to mediate criminal charges against the giant Quebec firm SNC-Lavalin.

Was Scheer's call a wise move?

"It does sound a bit shrill and predictable," says Watt. "I think they pulled the alarm.

"He'll have to backfill with highly specific reasons and explanations for why that is the appropriate remedy ... I think he's going to have to come out with a much more lawyerly attack on the prime minister's behaviour."

There remains much unknown about what happened - and a long way to go before the October election date - for any certainty on how much Wednesday's bombshell will reshape Ottawa's political landscape. With only one side of the story told in detail so far, the narrative is still in flux and possibilities for new revelations very much in play, says Watt.

"I don't think public opinion is set on this. There presumably are other shoes to drop that we can't see right now."

So Scheer's challenge, says Watt, is keeping momentum and turning the rather arcane rule-of-law subtleties of attorney-general independence into an election issue for Canadians focused on jobs, health care and raising their children.

"We've seen lots of shooting stars where the parliamentary press gallery is running around saying this government is going down. They light up and disappear. Mr. Scheer has got to keep the focus on this. He has to use this to show the prime minister is not who you thought he was. That's where this can be enterprise-threatening."

Rather than demanding the prime minister's head, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh called for a public inquiry "that would have independence to assess the truth."

Solid strategy, assesses Robin V. Sears, a longtime NDP strategist who runs Earnscliffe Strategy Group in Ottawa.

"The problem with Mr. Scheer's response is where does he go from here? Should Trudeau jump off a cliff? Jagmeet and his advisers were smart because they've now got a vehicle in which they can keep dropping evidence to argue for a public inquiry step by step."

Trudeau's response to Wilson-Raybould's forensic, detailed deconstruction of meetings and conversations have amounted to sound-bite dismissals made during other announcements. That decision not to address any of the substantive allegations in similar fashion is a curiosity, says Sears.

"A little contrition would have gone a long way. I think there's just a sense of chaos around the centre of the government ... I don't get the sense there's a strategic plan being executed."

And consider, he says, that it was all easily avoided.

"It was entirely predictable that when they dumped Jody, she would seek revenge. Had anyone given any thought to that? Obviously not. This is really amateurish communications management."

So what of the Liberal fortunes?

"I don't know how the story goes away for a long time," says Penny Collenette, a former Liberal organizer and law professor at the University of Ottawa. "I think people really want the truth. If there's two truths, then Canadians are smart. They'll figure it out. They'll decide. Everybody needs to know what happened and what went on."

For her part, Collenette called Wilson-Raybould's testimony "very credible, very honest. The detail is what made her very believable."

But any notions that Wilson-Raybould's political flame throwing could bring down the government are dramatically premature, political watchers agree.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5016091/scheer-alternative-facts-snc-lavalin/

March 2, 2019 8:11 pm

Scheer blasts Liberals' "alternative facts' on SNC-Lavalin story

By Kerri Breen

<snip>

While Justin Trudeau has said he disagrees unequivocally with his former justice minister's version of events, he has also made comments suggesting he believes the difference between his story and hers comes down to perspective.

<snip>

"There are disagreements in perspective on this, but I can reassure Canadians that we were doing our job and we were doing it in a way that respects and defends our institutions."

The same day, Foreign Affairs minister Chrystia Freeland told CBC radio that Wilson-Raybould spoke "her truth" but added that she believes the prime minister would never apply "improper pressure."

On the Roy Green Show on Saturday, pollster Darrell Bricker said Trudeau's public comments on the SNC-Lavalin case have not helped.

"So far, the prime minister has done nothing to quell the problems that he has," said Bricker, Global CEO of Public Affairs for Ipsos. "In fact, every time he stands in front of the camera he seems to make it worse."

He said Trudeau will have a difficult time coming back from the allegations in the months before the October election, though the party does have time to present a compelling case to Canadians  -  if it has one.

"Once those kinds of things happen, this is going to dog them all the way through to the election campaign. And governments that are dogged by this kind of thing have a very difficult time convincing Canadians that they actually deserve another term," he said.


<snip>

https://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/macdougall-trudeau-beware-this-snc-mess-will-resonate-with-canadians

MacDougall: SNC scandal is leaving a mark voters will remember

Andrew MacDougall Updated: March 2, 2019

Following the twists and turns of the SNC-Lavalin drama, it's easy to miss the real scandal, one that will do the most damage if it fully registers. Forget the machinations of Trudeau v. Jody Wilson-Raybould, including her explosive testimony; it's SNC v. the system that will most anger "ordinary" Canadians. How is one company seemingly able to bend a government to its will?

Trudeau's government, you'll remember, was elected on a pledge to help the middle class. It promised to be open, transparent and accountable. It also promised to be proudly feminist. The SNC scandal is acid to all of those brands.

Now there might indeed be a bushel of middle-class people working for SNC in the politically important province of Quebec, but none of them would be able to bend the ear of the Trudeau government to the degree done here. Facing potential economic ruin because of the foreign bribery charges being pursued in Canadian courts, SNC managed to effect a change to Canadian law to allow for the remediation agreements that would allow it to sidestep a conviction and continue receiving lucrative federal government contracts. Not satisfied with these efforts, SNC has also reportedly been chipping away at the federal rules banning convicted companies from receiving federal work. If SNC has its way, companies won't automatically face a 10-year ban for their criminal behaviour.

The whole episode is reminiscent of the way things were before Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper took the big money out of Canadian politics, eliminating corporate and union donations and pushing individual contributions to levels where they could not credibly be perceived as buying influence. Anyone wondering why those changes were made need only look at the scandal now unfolding.

Now there might indeed be a bushel of middle-class people working for SNC in the politically important province of Quebec, but none of them would be able to bend the ear of the Trudeau government to the degree done here. Facing potential economic ruin because of the foreign bribery charges being pursued in Canadian courts, SNC managed to effect a change to Canadian law to allow for the remediation agreements that would allow it to sidestep a conviction and continue receiving lucrative federal government contracts. Not satisfied with these efforts, SNC has also reportedly been chipping away at the federal rules banning convicted companies from receiving federal work. If SNC has its way, companies won't automatically face a 10-year ban for their criminal behaviour.

The whole episode is reminiscent of the way things were before Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper took the big money out of Canadian politics, eliminating corporate and union donations and pushing individual contributions to levels where they could not credibly be perceived as buying influence. Anyone wondering why those changes were made need only look at the scandal now unfolding.

Trudeau has frustrated disclosure at every opportunity. Instead of detailing his office's interactions with Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau dismissed the story as "false" and ordered the Liberals on the House of Commons' Justice Committee to circumscribe its witness list to exclude anyone who might know anything about it. (Wilson-Raybould was, obviously, eventually allowed to appear.) Even the departure of Gerry Butts, Trudeau's top aide, came and went without any disclosure. He, too, will now appear at committee, but the others involved will not.

And while Trudeau and his office were refusing to be straight with Canadians, they were busy trying to bury Wilson-Raybould on and off the record. Dismissing Wilson-Raybould as "difficult" and "Jody-centric" is a straight-up insult to the feminism Trudeau has tried to preach since the swearing in of his first gender-balanced cabinet. When push came to shove, Trudeau appears to have shoved Wilson-Raybould out of the way instead of accepting her principled refusal to play ball on SNC.

The whole mess stinks. It's a dark cloud that couldn't be further from Trudeau's 2015 pledge of sunny ways. And being sold a false bill of goods is precisely the kind of thing Canadians tend to notice come election time.

<snip>

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/marin-time-for-michael-wernick-to-walk-away-with-cushy-pension

MARIN: Time for Michael Wernick to walk away with cushy pension

Andre Marin Published: March 2, 2019

<snip>

Back in Canada, we had an assortment of "fixers" from the Prime Minister on down, including an assortment of political hoodlums working for the Prime Minister bullying our former AG to "find a solution" to save SNC-Lavalin from prosecution.

"Finding a solution" was code word used over and over by Trudeau and his fixers to overturn the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

<snip>

So, who is expected, in our parliamentary democracy, to steer key politicians and their aides from overstepping their boundaries? Step forward Michael Wernick, the top civil servant who is also deputy minister to Trudeau, Clerk of the Privy Council and head of the public service.

And Wernick failed spectacularly in that job. He let himself be co-opted by powerful Liberals. Wernick allowed partisan politics to seep into the public service. He testified a few weeks back before the Justice Committee.

After entertaining us with all types of non sequiturs about an apocalyptical future society involving people getting shot during an election and praising a Liberal government minister, which had nothing to do with SNC-Lavalin, he actually confirmed that pressure was exerted by the Prime Minister's staff and him for months after being told by Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould that she would not back down from the prosecution.

Wilson-Raybould filled the narrative this past week.

She said she had several detailed meetings and conversations with Wernick, including one on Sept. 17 on an unrelated issue where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau immediately brought up the SNC-Lavalin case pressuring her to go for a deferred prosecution agreement. She added: "Then, to my surprise, the Clerk started to make the case for the need to have a DPA."

Trudeau said there was a provincial election in Quebec and that's where he had his seat. Wilson-Raybould pushed back asking whether he was interfering politically with her role as Attorney General.

Trudeau's code language: "No, no, no, we just need to find a solution.

Months later, on Dec. 19, Wernick was at it again trying to "find a solution" calling Wilson-Raybould to inform her that Trudeau was "quite determined, quite firm."

"He said: "I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another,'" she said.

<snip>

How is Wernick's role in all of this any different from the ten other politicians and their staffers who met, emailed and texted Wilson-Raybould to change her course of action over several months? The use of code language allowed for plausible deniability. Now the bunch of eleven can say they didn't use undue pressure, they were only trying to "find a solution" to a problem and save jobs.

<snip>

Wernick should have been the adult in the room. He aided and abetted the PMO in intimidating Wilson-Raybould to change her mind. Time to retire or be retired.

At least with 38 years of public service, he'll have a nice cushy pension and won't have to worry about sleeping on a cold prison cot.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/warren-the-liberals-conservatives-and-media-have-all-failed-on-this-mess#comments

WARREN: Liberals, Conservatives and media all failed on this mess

Jim Warren   

Published: March 2, 2019

<snip>

I have never seen so many smart people doing their impressions of stupid people. You know it is a bad week in Ottawa when Jagmeet Singh is the lone shining star.

First the government: This has been a communications disaster. I understand that this is an act of political fratricide and it's hard to figure out how to avoid being shot when the shooting is coming from within your own trench. But SNC-Lavalin would be an issue instead of a scandal if the PMO had only come out with the truth the moment they were asked about the issue.

It shouldn't take a rocket scientist to figure out who leaked the story.

The Liberal explanation keeps changing. Their story has been confusing and, at times, unbelievable. Trudeau should have told his complete side of the story first and taken the initiative. And now the story continues to drag out because the government fails to be consistent and complete in its account.

It's the classic case of death by a thousand cuts.

While the PMO has floundered, the supporting cast has been worse. The Chair of Justice Committee and the Liberal committee members let their party down. Their performance was inept. All cabinet ministers need to be fighting like it is for their political lives. Instead, it's too little, too late.

This brings us to Andrew Scheer, who looks like he is running for high school president instead of prime minister. Calling for Trudeau's resignation was as equally inept as the Liberals' performance.

Napoleon said, "Never interfere with your enemy when he is making a mistake." Scheer apparently wants to get rid of the gift that keeps on giving.

Don't you want this drama to keep going on as long as possible? He should be calling for procedures that will drag this out even longer. Many Conservatives I spoke to this week were disappointed with Scheer's performance.

Remarkably, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh had the best week of the federal party leaders. Perhaps because he is also a lawyer, he seemed knowledgeable and measured in his response. He looked smart by calling for a national inquiry, his second victory of the week after winning his byelection.

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 03, 2019, 12:47:59
https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/scheer-open-to-the-idea-of-splitting-justice-attorney-general-roles-if-pm-1.4319286

Scheer 'open' to the idea of splitting justice, attorney general roles if PM

Rachel Aiello, Ottawa News Bureau Online Producer

Published Sunday, March 3, 2019 7:00AM EST

<snip>

During her committee appearance, Wilson-Raybould suggested that separating these roles could be a way to keep future attorneys general removed from the political machinations that the justice minister is privy to.

"There has always been a different aspect of that role within the Canadian cabinet going back over 150 years now. So it's not just as if a minister executed a program delivery improperly or wasn't the best communicator it was in her capacity as the chief legal officer of this country. She determined that would be inappropriate to intervene in an independent criminal court case and she lost her job because of that," Scheer said.

<snip>

Scheer also said his caucus will continue to call for Trudeau to join the slowly-growing witness list at the committee.

"Absolutely he needs to, under oath, on the record with the ability to have that kind of back and forth. We've seen in question period, he doesn't answer your questions… he needs to sit there and explain," Scheer said.

One unanswered question is Wilson-Raybould's future in caucus. Trudeau has said that he is still undecided if she has a place among the Liberal benches.

For her part, Wilson-Raybould says she will continue to serve the constituents of Vancouver-Granville, B.C. "as a Liberal Member of Parliament."

Asked about this, Goodale said on CTV's Question Period that he hopes "that there can be some kind of reconciliation," but doesn't know if that'll be possible after she wouldn't say if she still has confidence in Trudeau.

"This has obviously been a very sad and difficult and painful experience, I'm sure on all sides, it has not been pleasant when you have these kinds of disputes and arguments and very intense feelings," Goodale said.

"I would hope that there can be some kind of reconciliation ... A caucus depends on internal cohesion and belief in one another and trust and confidence ... And if things are going to be repaired it's going to take an awful lot of hard work, whether that can be done or not, I don't know," Goodale said.

In a separate interview on CTV's Question Period, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said that she knows that Wilson-Raybould still has support within the Liberal caucus.

"Particularly a lot of women in the Liberal caucus who are #standwithjody," May said. "It is awkward for the prime minister for sure."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ontario-liberal-mp-celina-caesar-chavannes-not-running-in-october-election-1.5040589

Ontario Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes not running in October election

Whitby MP says her decision is not related to Jody Wilson-Raybould's testimony

CBC News Posted: Mar 02, 2019 3:33 PM ET

Ontario Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes announced Saturday she would not be seeking re-election this year.

In a statement posted to Twitter, the member for Whitby, Ont., explained she had informed the prime minister and party whip of her "tremendously difficult" decision on Feb. 12.

She also stressed that her choice wasn't related to the ongoing SNC-Lavalin affair and the testimony of her caucus colleague Jody Wilson-Raybould, who this week described interference by the prime minister and high-level government officials over her decision not to offer a deferred prosecution deal to the Quebec company.

She added she had immense respect for the former justice minister and attorney general and that would never change. The MP had commented several times on Twitter in support of Wilson-Raybould during the unfolding events surrounding her resignation from cabinet.

"Factors influencing this decision started long before Feb.12," the statement says. "It is a personal decision, based on a number of factors."

Caesar-Chavannes said her mind had been made up for months, dating back to before she decided not to continue as a parliamentary secretary in September.

<snip>

She joins Mark Eyking, Bill Casey, Colin Fraser, TJ Harvey and Scott Brison on the list of Liberal MPs choosing not to run again in October's general election.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/trudeaus-lineup-of-willing-op-ed-writers-points-to-larger-problem-of-media-manipulation/

Trudeau's lineup of willing op-ed writers points to larger problem of media manipulation

by Graeme Gordon

One of the most revelatory bombshells from former Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould's candid and damaging testimony was when she alleged that the Prime Minister's chief of staff Katie Telford offered to get the minister positive press if she were to follow the Trudeau government's wishes.

According to Wilson-Raybould, Telford told her chief of staff that the Prime Minister's Office could "lineup all kinds of people to write op-eds" to defend her for allowing SNC-Lavalin get off virtually scot-free for bribery charges. The alleged bribery included allegedly spending nearly $2 million on parties and prostitutes for deceased Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's son's visit to Canada.

Telford's alleged statement rankled many in the mainstream media. The Toronto Star's public editor Kathy English was indignant in a column where she said it is "disturbing and laughable" that Trudeau's chief of staff allegedly suggested newspapers like the Toronto Star have what English inferred as a "passive process of publishing to appease special interests."

<snip>

And who can forget former CBC national defence journalist James Cudmore who - shortly after former Royal Canadian Navy's Vice-Admiral Mark Norman was thrown under the bus - got a job working for Liberal defence minister Harjit Sajjan?

There are nearly a dozen journalists that come to mind who jumped for government flack jobs dangled to them once Trudeau assumed power. CBC itself had fawning coverage of Trudeau last election cycle because - as I've heard from sources - some at the public broadcaster saw him as their saviour, promising, and delivering, hundreds of millions in additional funding. 

Other leftist journalists need no incentive to do the PMO's bidding. They're true believers that will look for any right-wing extremist who is politically active and try their best to tie them to the Conservative party of Canada (sometimes legitimately). These same journalists, however, have failed to file any reports on extremists from the left, many of whom are also politically active and affiliated with the NDP or Liberals.

When Gerald Butts resigned, some journalists expressed sadness publicly (others were tactful enough to keep it private). It was quite revealing of just how exceptional Trudeau's best friend and principal secretary was at his job in grooming and managing journalists, some even admitting their overall general agreement with the government and finding it hard to see Trudeau losing the plot. 

And if journalists honestly think that a bailout of the legacy media will not have a net effect on the industry that's positive for the Trudeau government, their benefactor, they need to give their heads a shake.

Money always has an influential effect, whether intended or not, and $595 million is a lot of influence. At the very least it will help hinder the ability of less predictable and less controllable leaner and meaner startups, not tamed by corporate culture, from thriving in their absence, keeping media ownership consolidated in a few gatekeepers' hands.

At a pub last week, a friend in banking bluntly told me journalists are simply tools or conduits for powerful people to sell their agenda or message to the masses. After initially feeling personally affronted, I couldn't really disagree. As a regular contributor and listener to media criticism news outlet CANADALAND, over the past two years too many examples of journalists as tools for powerful people came to mind (a few of which I've recounted for you above). 

One of the fundamental jobs of the PMO is to control messaging in the media. So, like the sustained pressure put on Wilson-Raybould, the Trudeau government (and powerful people generally, e.g. Michael Bryant) has a multitude of sophisticated levers and buttons it can pull and push to wholly manipulate narratives in this country. It's laughable and disturbing to suggest and think otherwise.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/goldstein-justin-trudeau-just-wasnt-ready

Lorrie Goldstein   

Published: March 2, 2019

<snip>

We're learning that electing a prime minister who would not have become prime minister, given the thinness of his resume, were his last name not "Trudeau," has real-world consequences.

This as we listen to his implausible explanations for removing Jody Wilson-Raybould as Canada's attorney general change by the hour, exposing the real reason - that she has political ethics and gravitas that he does not.

The Liberal party that considers itself Canada's natural governing party is in disarray under his leadership, its cabinet ministers and MPs reduced to uttering gibberish as they try to defend Trudeau's indefensible actions in the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Because there's no defence for a prime minister who - as Raybould's calmly delivered but devastating four hours of testimony at the Commons justice committee revealed last week - puts his own partisan political interests and those of his party, above the national interest.

Above the interests of all Canadians in having a prime minister and a government that understands the importance of such basic concepts as prosecutorial independence and the rule of law.

<snip>

Because beyond the narrow confines of the Ottawa political-media bubble, the corrosive effect of more than three years of Trudeau's policies continues to undermine the body politic.

For example, the real-world consequences of having our national energy policy influenced by Gerald Butts, Trudeau's recently resigned principal secretary, close friend and most powerful aide, who idiotically campaigned for a carbon free energy industry by 2050 in his last job as head of the World Wildlife Fund Canada.

A poll released Friday by Angus Reid Institute shows the new hotbed of popular support for separation in Canada is Alberta, not Quebec.

It found 50% of Albertans would support secession from Canada compared to an October 2016 poll showing 82% of Quebecers had no desire to revisit the issue of sovereignty any time soon.

<snip>

While support for separation in Alberta is not yet as great a threat to Canadian unity as the Quebec separatist movement in its heyday, according to Reid, it's hardly surprising separatist sentiment is growing in a province where Trudeau's promise that carbon taxes would give Alberta the "social licence" to build pipelines, has been an abject failure.

On a related front, Statistics Canada reported Friday that an unexpectedly severe slowdown in Canada's economic growth in the final quarter of 2018 will likely continue and spread this year.

To be fair, federal policies are only one factor that impacts our economy. There are many others the government can't control.

That said, and contrary to the world according to Justin Trudeau, we now know that deficits don't balance themselves and growing the economy "from the heart outwards" is election rhetoric, not an economic plan.

Nice hair, though.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 03, 2019, 13:52:58
... One unanswered question is Wilson-Raybould's future in caucus. Trudeau has said that he is still undecided if she has a place among the Liberal benches.

For her part, Wilson-Raybould says she will continue to serve the constituents of Vancouver-Granville, B.C. "as a Liberal Member of Parliament." ...
On this, haven't read/heard this elsewhere, but she's told the Vancouver Province (https://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/mike-smyth-nobodys-puppet-jody-wilson-raybould-refused-to-be-controlled) ...
Quote
... she is staying the Liberal caucus and plans to run for re-election as a Liberal in October.

“I was confirmed as the Liberal Party of Canada candidate for Vancouver Granville last year,” she told me ...
:pop:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 03, 2019, 13:57:03
I dont think its about jobs or politics or anything else like that.

It think all boils down to greed and influence. Way too many high ranking liberals are involved with SNC. Just like they are with Bombardier and Power Corp. The Laurentien Elites if you will.

There's too much face and money to lose in individual portfolios to let SNC fail.

Nothing to do with Canada and all to do with bank accounts.

 :2c:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 03, 2019, 14:43:15
>According to Wilson-Raybould, Telford told her chief of staff that the Prime Minister's Office could "lineup all kinds of people to write op-eds"

>Telford's alleged statement rankled many in the mainstream media.

It's easy to see how it works. 

1. "Respected" people - not necessarily journalists - write the op-eds. 

2. The leading wave of "respected" opinion provides the pretext for the army of dupes reporters described by Ben Rhodes* to follow comfortably along where their political inclinations lie.

The institutional press are angry and upset because they know that both points are highly plausible, which means that many reporters basically dance to music provided by unelected political operatives.  Some have to confront the uncomfortable truth that they are or have been one of the puppets.

*"they literally know nothing"
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on March 03, 2019, 16:15:47
And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.

SNC only owns a 1/6 minority...along for the ride, Spanish company Cintra SPa owns the greatest portion (45%) followed by CPP (40%).  The 407 will still be able to charge a king’s ransom, no matter where the smallest sharelholder’s HQ ends up...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Colin P on March 03, 2019, 17:22:08
SNC already knows the outcome of any case against them, they should have folded the company and the bits to shell companies that could reform under a new name, sweep the board clean and start fresh.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 03, 2019, 18:07:27
>Just so we get this straight, while SNC's headquarter is in Montreal, there are more SNC employees working in the other provinces than in the province of Quebec. In fact there are almost as many working out of Toronto as there are in Montreal.

The public perception does not always match the truth.  Right now, from what I read online, I suppose the issue is perceived as one framed around the interests of the LPC and QC.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on March 03, 2019, 18:24:54
Just so we get this straight, while SNC's headquarter is in Montreal, there are more SNC employees working in the other provinces than in the province of Quebec. In fact there are almost as many working out of Toronto as there are in Montreal.

Not relevant.  The key factors are that SNC leadership is in Montreal and that the company is incorporated in Quebec, no matter the distribution of the worker bees in the rest of Canada and globally.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 03, 2019, 19:00:27
On this, haven't read/heard this elsewhere, but she's told the Vancouver Province (https://theprovince.com/news/bc-politics/mike-smyth-nobodys-puppet-jody-wilson-raybould-refused-to-be-controlled) ...:pop:

Another (huge) challenge by JWR to feminist Trudeau/LPC. Lets see how he replies to the media next week when asked if he is going to authorize JWR to run for re election as a Liberal in the Oct general. Should be interesting.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 03, 2019, 21:53:48
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-michael-wernicks-the-last-person-who-should-be-monitoring-election-fairness://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/marin-time-for-michael-wernick-to-walk-aw

GUNTER: Michael Wernick's the last person who should be monitoring election fairness

Lorne Gunter   

Published: March 1, 2019

I am against the federal government's Critical Election Incident Public Protocol (CEIPP) in principle. But given the up-to-his-eyeballs involvement of Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick in the prime minister's efforts to pressure former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould into ending the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, I now have very practical objections to the CEIPP, too.

In early February, Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould announced that five senior civil servants will monitor the Internet for any sign of foreign meddling during this fall's federal election.

Gould insisted this was not about "refereeing the election." Rather, the CEIPP was about "alerting Canadians of an incident that jeopardizes their rights to a free and fair election."

Okay, some giant hack of voting results that changed the outcome in several ridings might qualify, but Gould instead said the Liberals' main concern was stopping "fake news" and "orchestrated disinformation campaigns."

That's a whole different kettle of fish. That sounds like an attempt to monitor the issues voters can and cannot see during an election.

That's not a conspiratorial fear on my part. Canadian law already makes it very difficult for any group other than registered political parties to advertise their views during a campaign. Since the internet offers these "third parties" a powerful new way to get around the politicians' advertising monopoly, is it that hard to believe the government would try to regulate Internet and social media in the name of "fairness" and use "fake news" as their excuse?

The key to the CEIPP's objectivity, then, is who sits on it. And that is where my practical concern comes in.

I was already worried about the objectivity of Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick before Wilson-Raybould's testimony this week at the Commons Justice committee.

In his own testimony last week, Wernick exclaimed that he was "deeply concerned about my country now, its politics, and where it's headed."

<snip>

And if he cannot distinguish between frustrated people letting off steam by using exaggeration and real conspirators plotting to commit crimes, then Wernick has no business being named as one of the five impartial monitors of our upcoming federal campaign.

<snip>

Wernick is supposed to be entirely non-partisan. Entirely. Given his entanglement in the SNC affair, he probably shouldn't keep his main job, but he definitely can't keep his post as an impartial monitor of this fall's campaign.

https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/lilley-trudeaus-bad-week-just-got-worse

LILLEY: Trudeau's bad week just got worse

Brian Lilley

Published: March 1, 2019

Canadians are losing faith in his government, China is calling out Canada for not following the rule of law and the Mounties are reviewing a request to investigate wrongdoing in the prime minister's office.

The week did not end well for Justin Trudeau.

A poll released late Friday by Public Square Research shows that over the last two weeks Canadians have begun shifting their views on the prime minister and his government over the handling of the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

The polling firm conducted two different online surveys, one on Feb. 13-14 and one on Feb. 28-March 1.

In the first survey, 73% said Jody Wilson-Raybould was more credible compared to 27% who felt Justin Trudeau was. Two weeks later, 79% said Wilson-Raybould was more credible compared to 21% for Trudeau.

Meanwhile, 73% said they agreed with the statement that "the government should not involve itself if a company gets in trouble with the law in Canada."

<snip>

Can there be any question that the government, from the PM to his top officials, were interfering politically in a criminal trial?

In this case, they were trying to help a favoured company avoid criminal prosecution, there are also allegations that top officials have been involved in helping to make sure that criminal trial against Vice-Admiral Mark Norman goes ahead.

None of this is good for the government.

<snip>

https://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/exclusive-jody-wilson-raybould-overwhelmed-grateful-and-seeking-re-election

Exclusive: Jody Wilson-Raybould 'overwhelmed, grateful' - and seeking re-election

Jody Wilson-Raybould says she has heard from "thousands" of Canadians since her bombshell testimony in Ottawa. And she's ready to run for re-election in the fall.

Mike Smyth Updated: March 2, 2019

Jody Wilson-Raybould says she is "overwhelmed and grateful" about an outpouring of public support since her scorching testimony in the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

And despite a nasty internal backlash after her explosive appearance before the federal justice committee, she has no intention of quitting the Liberal caucus in Ottawa.

"It really has been quite remarkable," Wilson-Raybould said Saturday, in her first public remarks since her bombshell testimony.

"I have heard from thousands of people - neighbours, friends, constituents, as well as people from all across Canada."

The former attorney general said she plans to run for re-election in the fall under the Liberal banner in Vancouver Granville.

"I feel overwhelmed and grateful. In my mind, all I was doing was my job."

<snip>

"Like Canadians everywhere, I just try to do my job the best I can," she said, adding she's been recognized everywhere she goes while messages of support pour in.

"People coming up to me in airports, social media, emails, deliveries to my offices - I'm grateful for all of the support and kind thoughts."

<snip>

Despite the backlash, Wilson-Raybould said she has no intention of leaving the Liberals.

"I was elected as the Liberal member of Parliament for Vancouver Granville and I will continue to serve as such," she said.

Trudeau said last week he had not decided whether Wilson-Raybould will be allowed to remain in the government caucus or to run again for the Liberals.

"I haven't yet had the opportunity to review her entire testimony," Trudeau said. "I will do that before making any further decisions."

But Wilson-Raybould said she's already secured the Liberal nomination for the October election.

"I was confirmed as the Liberal Party of Canada candidate for Vancouver Granville last year," she said.

Despite being at the centre of a raging political storm, Wilson-Raybould said she is feeling upbeat and confident.

"I am doing fine," she said. "The past few weeks have been eventful ones for our country, our system of government, and for myself and family."

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/jody-wilson-raybould-justin-trudeau-liberals/

How a core member of Team Trudeau became the PM's greatest threat

Jody Wilson-Raybould was once one of Justin Trudeau's star political prospects. Now, a thorn in his side.

by John Geddes Mar 3, 2019

Jody Wilson-Raybould has a way of making an impression. Oddly enough, for a politician, she often makes it in private. There was the day in 2011, back when Wilson-Raybould was heading the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, that she ran into former prime minister Paul Martin. He later said she treated him to a "brilliant exposition" on First Nations issues, which led to Martin talking her up in his Liberal circles. By 2013, newly minted Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau had heard enough to fly to Whitehorse to meet her. Their one-on-one so impressed Trudeau that only a few months later he was showcasing her to Liberals as a star political prospect at a Montreal party convention.

After the Liberals won the 2015 election, Trudeau named Wilson-Raybould his justice minister-among the plum cabinet posts. Yet she would rarely be the centre of attention. She pushed through bills on cannabis legalization, assisted suicide and criminal law reform. She pleaded behind the scenes for a sweeping overhaul of Ottawa's relationship with Indigenous people. Still, her reticent manner didn't fully draw the spotlight-not until, that is, she appeared before the House justice committee on Feb. 27 to deliver testimony on the SNC-Lavalin affair. Suddenly, her restraint was riveting. Her spare rhetoric made every damning word sting.

<snip>

Liberal MPs looked appropriately stricken or studiously nonchalant. In Wilson-Raybould, they face a figure unlike anyone who has occupied centre stage before through a prolonged Canadian political scandal. She posed the gravest threat to the Liberal party in the second Trudeau era-yet her fellow Liberals were taking pains not to cut her adrift. She remained in their caucus-even though Tories and New Democrats praised her as truthful and, of course, fastened on her as their most valuable, visible asset in an election year. She had quit Trudeau's cabinet to serve as a mere backbench Vancouver MP-but now they watched her stature soar.

Several layered factors make Wilson-Raybould unique. In a shady sequence of events involving a tainted company lobbying for a big favour from the government, she seems to have stood up to the powers that be. She did so as one of the top-ranking women in a cabinet famously engineered around gender equity. And she did it having risen higher in the federal government than any Indigenous politician before her. At the core of her persona are her Vancouver Island roots in the villages of her father's Kwakwaka'wakw people. "I come from a long line of matriarchs and I am a truth-teller in accordance with the laws and traditions of our Big House," she told the committee.

<snip>

How would Trudeau fight that? There's no political opposition research playbook for counterpunching against Wilson-Raybould's singular challenge. The Prime Minister stuck to the usually reliable jobs, jobs, jobs tack-that he was only worrying about the fate of SNC-Lavalin employees, almost 9,000 of them across Canada. The problem was, Wilson-Raybould freely allowed that pointing out to her the potential job losses if the company suffered was fine. What wasn't legitimate was trying to inject raw politics into decision-making surrounding a criminal prosecution.

For instance, Wilson-Raybould recounted how, at a meeting she had last Sept. 17 with the Prime Minister, the possibility of SNC-Lavalin pulling its headquarters out of Montreal was raised. Trudeau blurted out that he was an "MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau," referring to his Montreal riding. Meetings and calls to Wilson-Raybould and her staff continued through the fall.

Finally, on Dec. 19, Wernick, Trudeau's deputy minister and the most powerful federal bureaucrat, called her at home. Wilson-Raybould said he told her Trudeau was determined to get SNC-Lavalin its deal. "He said, 'I think he is going to find a way to get it done one way or another,'?" she recalled, adding later, "In my mind, those were veiled threats, and I took them as such."

Events that followed suggest she wasn't wrong to feel threatened. On Jan. 14, in what was expected to be a minor cabinet shuffle, Trudeau demoted Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs.

<snip>

Regular communication? Our colleague? When war breaks out on Parliament Hill, collegiality is usually the first casualty. Clearly, Wilson-Raybould's political relationships are uncommonly durable. Her singular set of political traits make her hard to cast as a plausible villain. But there's another factor. Liberals are reluctant to bid adieu to something she, as much as anyone, embodies.

<snip>

By contrast, among Liberals who never cracked Trudeau's inner circle, a perhaps inevitable they-had-it-coming critique quickly began circulating. Even Butts's not-for-attribution critics, however, don't deny his talent. "I have the greatest respect for his intellect, his strategic instincts when it comes to politics and even policy," said one veteran Liberal strategist who asked not to be named. "But the way he centralized things around himself is exactly why this Jody Wilson-Raybould thing has happened."

<snip>

I missed this one earlier, and was about to skip it entirely as is a few days old in a topic that has evolved so quickly, but, upon beginning to read it, decided to include it. I disagree that Trudeau has "changed", as opposed to "been exposed" and further "exposed himself", albeit only to those who were previously blind:

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/justin-trudeau-my-how-youve-changed/

Justin Trudeau, my how you've changed

Andrew MacDougall: Justin Trudeau looks like the un-smart, un-serious man that so many of his political opponents have always insisted he is.

by Andrew MacDougall Feb 28, 2019

Imagine you're Justin Trudeau.

The SNC-Lavalin scandal has been battering your government for weeks. Your story keeps shifting. The usually docile media aren't letting it rest. Even a thousand coordinated tweets about the positive impact of the Canada Child Benefit can't change the channel.

On the contrary, l'affair SNC-now christened LavScam-is picking up steam.

You've been forced to accept the resignation of your good friend and top advisor, Gerry Butts, who showed himself the door despite doing absolutely nothing wrong on SNC. Your boy Buttsy jumped on the SNC grenade to spare others the damage.

Only Butts missed the grenade. Completely.

Even worse, Jody Wilson-Raybould-i.e. the grenade-launcher-is now before the Justice Committee. She's (relatively) free to speak and she is letting loose. And now the shrapnel is everywhere, and everyone is bleeding.

You're bleeding. Your chief of staff is bleeding. Your Quebec advisor is bleeding. Your policy guy is bleeding. Your big-spending, do-nothing finance minister is bleeding. Your finance minister's chief of staff is bleeding. And the "non-partisan" clerk of the Privy Council-i.e. your own personal pick for the post? Well, Michael Wernick is soiled. Comprehensively soiled. And bleeding.

<snip>

You're watching this all go down, and it is devastating. Your government is in peril. You're in peril. You're staring a return to your career of part-time drama teaching right in the face.

And so you decide it's time to fight back. Because the cast of fifth-rate clowns you sent to fill the Liberal seats at the justice committee certainly didn't do any fighting back. They not only missed the grenades, they picked them up, played with them, and then didn't even realize when they went off in their faces.

But that's all right. You're Justin Trudeau. Mr. Sunny Ways. Mr. Hope and Hard Work. You got this. So you wheel yourself out to 'push back' against Wilson-Raybould's allegations.

Only you don't push back.

You don't counter Wilson-Raybould's facts and recollections with any of your own. You don't dispute what was said, even about your alleged direct personal involvement, other than to say you disagree with Wilson-Raybould's "characterization" of events.

And it stinks.

It stinks as you moan about a difficult couple of weeks because of "internal disagreements." It stinks as you reference your success in making it easier to die, and your success in making it easier to get high. It stinks as you talk about your job being to stand up for jobs and pensions, to stand up for Canadians, and for Canadian workers, and all in an overly dramatic tone that suggests that no other prime minister has ever had that in their job description. It stinks as you speak about anything other than what Canadians need to hear from you.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5013229/david-lametti-snc-lavalin-affair-jody-wilson-raybould/

'No decision is ever final': Attorney General David Lametti as SNC-Lavalin affair continues

By Amanda Connolly

Attorney General David Lametti says decisions made by those in his role can always be changed.

In an interview with the West Block's Mercedes Stephenson, Lametti also suggested the description by his predecessor, Jody Wilson-Raybould, of attempted political interference to pressure her into helping SNC-Lavalin escape a criminal trial is not entirely accurate.

"Interference is perhaps the wrong word in that it implies something illegal is going on," he said.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5016873/candice-bergen-danirl-blaikie-snc-lavalin/

March 3, 2019 11:15 am

New attorney general 'under the thumb' of Trudeau, says Tory Candice Bergen on SNC-Lavalin

By Jessica Vomiero

Presenting a rare, united front, Tory MP Candace Bergen and NDP MP Daniel Blaikie believe the current attorney general should provide more clarity on the SNC-Lavalin affair currently plaguing Ottawa, the members told Mercedes Stephenson on The West Block this weekend.

After watching an interview between recently appointed Attorney General David Lametti and Stephenson, Bergen and Blaikie agreed that Lametti has been evasive in his communications about the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

"So there are a number of concerns but overall, to me what it looked like is we have a current attorney general who is completely under the thumb of the prime minister," said Bergen.

"What a comparison between the former attorney general, who is clear, concise, knows the law, is very direct. We heard that in her testimony and David Lametti, who was vague, evasive, didn't want to give an opinion and I would say he's doing exactly what the prime minister wants," Bergen continued.

Blaikie echoed her sentiment.

"What we need right now from the attorney general is clarity. It's what we need from the prime minister, too. And that interview was anything but clear in terms in terms of his answers," he said.

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 04, 2019, 06:18:56
https://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/gunter-michael-wernicks-the-last-person-who-should-be-monitoring-election-fairness://torontosun.com/opinion/columnists/marin-time-for-michael-wernick-to-walk-aw

GUNTER: Michael Wernick's the last person who should be monitoring election fairness



Is he actually slated to monitor it??  Read through the article quick and didn't see it.

Maybe well get Mr Trudeau to monitor it for ethics violations, he's probably the SME on it by now.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 04, 2019, 07:20:50
Global News is reporting that Gerald Butts' testimony is expected to rebut JWR's account.  Should be interesting.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 04, 2019, 08:04:16
The new Liberal lexicon: "her/his truth" following the lines of Pres Clinton: "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

JWR spoke, as stated by Trudeau and other Liberals "her truth". Butts will speak "his truth" in the hope that voters will take it as "the truth". I don't believe he will be successful among the majority of Cdns. We will see how the media handle it.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 04, 2019, 08:40:05
Another (huge) challenge by JWR to feminist Trudeau/LPC. Lets see how he replies to the media next week when asked if he is going to authorize JWR to run for re election as a Liberal in the Oct general. Should be interesting.
:pop:, indeed ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 04, 2019, 08:59:14

There is now talk in the "friendly" and "bought" media that a LPC caucus revolt may become a reality and speculation on who should lead.

Interesting times...

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ModlrMike on March 04, 2019, 09:40:04
It's not so much that the media has been bought... it's that they don't like to be reminded of the fact.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Lumber on March 04, 2019, 10:03:32
There is now talk in the "friendly" and "bought" media that a LPC caucus revolt may become a reality and speculation on who should lead.

Interesting times...

We've talked a lot about positive alternatives to Sheer. Who would be the best alternative to Trudeau? And please don't say ANYONE; I'm legitimately asking who are the real component and confident senior leadership types in the LPC. (And again, don't say NO ONE).

Freeland? Goodale? Morneau?

I know these people by their names and positions, but I don't really know if they would make strong PMs.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 04, 2019, 10:53:31
We've talked a lot about positive alternatives to Sheer. Who would be the best alternative to Trudeau? And please don't say ANYONE; I'm legitimately asking who are the real component and confident senior leadership types in the LPC. (And again, don't say NO ONE).

Freeland? Goodale? Morneau?

I know these people by their names and positions, but I don't really know if they would make strong PMs.

Freeland comes to mind.  She's been prominent in the media, would maybe regain the feminist angle and has been pretty effective as a minister.

Ralph Goodale is solid I think (Barring a few misspoken words while trying to do damage control for the boss)

Forget Morneau.  The guy has too many ethical mistakes of his own and is too linked to JT.

I know some say JWR but...the party will likely not let that happen.  She had a good performance, seems ethical and would check the box for aboriginals and women but she doesn't speak French, is relatively inexperienced and remember that many many people praising her right now were the same ones criticising Trudeau for putting people like her in cabinet to get checks in the box. 

I would support any of them minus Morneau if they were leader.   
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: SeaKingTacco on March 04, 2019, 10:54:42
We've talked a lot about positive alternatives to Sheer. Who would be the best alternative to Trudeau? And please don't say ANYONE; I'm legitimately asking who are the real component and confident senior leadership types in the LPC. (And again, don't say NO ONE).

Freeland? Goodale? Morneau?

I know these people by their names and positions, but I don't really know if they would make strong PMs.

Are you asking who might have the means and motive to successfully pull off a cabinet revolt or are you asking if, in a hypothetical world where Trudeau decided tomorrow to resign because he really enjoys teaching high school more than being PM who would be the best candidate to replace him until the next election?

If it is the first, I don't see anyone other than JWR herself pulling off a coup, and only then if enough cabinet ministers get really, really scared about the next election.

If it is the second, i would see either Freeland or McKenna taking the reigns. I don't honestly see all that much talent or ambition in this cabinet- maybe by design. Keeps them under the thumb of the PMO...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 04, 2019, 11:04:52
Are you asking who might have the means and motive to successfully pull off a cabinet revolt or are you asking if, in a hypothetical world where Trudeau decided tomorrow to resign because he really enjoys teaching high school spending more time with the family more than being PM who would be the best candidate to replace him until the next election?
Edited to add "the usual suspect" cliché ... ;)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 04, 2019, 11:40:17
Remius:
Quote
..... )JWR) is relatively inexperienced.....

What experience (Life, business/political) did Mr. Trudeau have before becoming the PM?

JWR was a, has got a law degree (which she utilized, called to the bar in 2000), became a  Crown Prosecutor (2000–2003), and is apparently a QC.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 04, 2019, 11:53:40
Remius:
What experience (Life, business/political) did Mr. Trudeau have before becoming the PM?

JWR was a, has got a law degree (which she utilized, called to the bar in 2000), became a  Crown Prosecutor (2000–2003), and is apparently a QC.

Rifleman, I doubt you were defending Trudeau's lack of experience when he ran. That isn't the point.

JWR has no chance.  The internal party issues are to great.  Too many people would work against her. I'm listing the things she has going against her.  Relative inexperience will be brought up by her detractors, heck the media has already gone there.  Do I think she could do it, yes, but for the many reasons and challenges I'm listing I don't see it happening.  I realise that some of you are star struck given her performance but unless the party backs her it can't happen.   If you think the party will back her with all their back room shenanigans you are all grasping and I doubt that even you Rifleman believe that the LPC is capable of letting her do that.  I like her and I respect what she did but the machine won't allow it.

Not now.  Maybe after an electoral loss.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Journeyman on March 04, 2019, 12:16:20
 I'd like to see Rona Ambrose run against Jody Wilson-Raybould… and I don't even think I'm a feminist!   ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 04, 2019, 12:19:58
I'd like to see Rona Ambrose run against Jody Wilson-Raybould… and I don't even think I'm a feminist!   ;D

Rona Ambrose would be PM today if she had run and we wouldn't be in this mess.

No it will be Andrew Scheer vs Trudeau (assuming he does not get ousted) and I bet Scheer will screw it up....

He's already jumped the gun according to some on this affair.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Colin P on March 04, 2019, 14:20:50
Goodale is <edited> and it will show. Garneau has managed to stay out of the shitshow so far and appears to be the "wise elder" in the background. He may not be able to win, but he would likley be good for the healing process.

Edited to remove a statement which was contrary to the guidelines for posting in the political forums.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 04, 2019, 14:22:26
Goodale is <edited> and it will show. Garneau has managed to stay out of the shitshow so far and appears to be the "wise elder" in the background. He may not be able to win, but he would likley be good for the healing process.

Garneau would make a better interim leader I think. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on March 04, 2019, 14:40:42
Not a chance we'll see Trudeau step down before the election. We're eight months out, we're about to enter a really gross and protracted campaign... SNC is going to be a weight around his ankle, but at present there's no smoking gun for anything illegal, and even JWR characterized is as not illegal. This won't sink the government, it will just make te election suck more for them and will firm up some voting intentions while swaying a limited number of others. I don't think many votes will actually really swing on this over the course of the entire campaign.

That said, the election looks pretty set to be a toss up at this point, with the usual 'anything can happen' caveat.

Would Trudeau step down if the LPC win a minority? Probably not- if he can weather this storm he'll probably keep the helm. For a Liberal leadership replacement we would probably need to see a CPC victory.

There's really not a lot of name recognition outside of the top half of Cabinet. Freeland immediately jumps to the top of my mind - she has stickhandled foreign affairs, particularly with the US, about as well as could be hoped. Being orn in Alberta wouldn't hurt her much, and she has good business experience- I think she's firm grounded in the 'real world' when it comes to trade and finance. Goodale has the political clout to potentially put it off, but I think people would be looking for someone a bit more fresh... That said, he is very highly experienced in Parliament and in the senior levels of the party, and that has something to be said for it. He would avoid many of the missteps that have plagued PMJT.

Outside of those two, nobody really stands out, though several have kept their noses suitably clean.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: tomydoom on March 04, 2019, 16:18:08
And the government slowly disintegrates

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-resignation-trudeau-snc-lavalin-1.5042411
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on March 04, 2019, 16:20:29
Philpott: "I must abide by my core values, my ethical responsibilities and constitutional obligations," she said in a statement.

"There can be a cost to acting on one's principles, but there is a bigger cost to abandoning them."

Oh boy. Something’s up.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ballz on March 04, 2019, 16:24:41
Wow... further up the thread I was going throw her name in as possible interim leaders if the wheels come all the way off the wagon before October... did not see that coming...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: dapaterson on March 04, 2019, 16:24:50
Given the current rate of change, we must amend "A week is a long time in politics" to read "A day is a long time in politics."
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 04, 2019, 16:31:43
Rebellion. 

Maybe JT will be forced out over this.  I can't see how he can survive much more of his cabinet resigning.  Now what?  Kick her out too?

Looking at possible successors is becoming more and more a reality...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Thucydides on March 04, 2019, 16:34:57
American Thinker suggests there is a much, much greater issue that will bring the Liberals down: the Economy.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/03/can_prettyboy_justin_trudeau_survive.html

Relevant quote:

Quote
This is an especially dicey time for the boy-wonder from the Great White North. Not only does he have the SNC scandal to answer for but now the economy is sagging. On Friday, the Financial Post reported that Canada's economy practically came to a halt in the final three months of 2018 in a much deeper-than-expected slowdown.  The country's economy grew by just 0.1 per cent in the fourth quarter, for an annualized pace of 0.4 per cent, Statistics Canada said Friday.

Considering we are tied at the hip to the world's largest economy, and the US economy has seen an explosive 100% jump in economic growth from 2% to 4% since 2016, this result seems incredible. Of course since Canada did not adjust tax rates to meet the challenge of US tax reform we hav lost $100 billion in foreign investment, and the blockade on pipeline construction deprives the canadian economy of millions of dollars per day (and to add insult to injury, we also spend millions of dollars to import Saudi Arabian oil to supply the East Coast...).

People may not remember all the scandals and gaffes, but they will be very aware of their pocketbooks....
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 04, 2019, 16:46:37
Rebellion. 

Maybe JT will be forced out over this.  I can't see how he can survive much more of his cabinet resigning.  Now what?  Kick her out too?
I think it's still a touch early for that (as of this post, anyway), but stand by for further evacuees ...
Given the current rate of change, we must amend "A week is a long time in politics" to read "A day is a long time in politics."
:nod:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 04, 2019, 16:49:48


Maybe milnews,  but pressure just intensified and likely derailed an already derailed plan.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 04, 2019, 16:52:17
Maybe milnews,  but pressure just intensified and likely derailed an already derailed plan.
Fair enough, but my  :2c: is still that we're not seeing rebellion -- the crack in the dyke IS getting bigger, though.

To fuel thought experiments and to act as a "speculation score card" of sorts, here's the list of Ministers in order of precedence as of JUST before Philpott leaving ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on March 04, 2019, 16:53:03
So do we get another MVA now? ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 04, 2019, 16:55:34
And the government slowly disintegrates

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/philpott-resignation-trudeau-snc-lavalin-1.5042411
Aaaaand the letter, with the "nut grafs" pulled if you don't want to read the whole thing ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: QV on March 04, 2019, 17:24:51
.... This won't sink the government...

As the government falls apart.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on March 04, 2019, 18:02:48
As the government falls apart.

Could be I’m wrong- for the time being, we’ll have to see if this turns into real momentum. The possibility also exists that if cabinet revolts hard and fast, that may allow for consolidation in time for the election. But a cabinet shakeup and a couple resignations eight months out is not a definite death knell for the current government.

In case it’s been lost or forgotten, I do hope to see the LPC defeated in the next election, but I’m still going to be pragmatic and objective as I watch what’s happening.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 04, 2019, 18:06:39
Could be I’m wrong- for the time being, we’ll have to see if this turns into real momentum. The possibility also exists that if cabinet revolts hard and fast, that may allow for consolidation in time for the election. But a cabinet shakeup and a couple resignations eight months out is not a definite death knell for the current government.

In case it’s been lost or forgotten, I do hope to see the LPC defeated in the next election, but I’m still going to be pragmatic and objective as I watch what’s happening.

Part of this will be Gerald Butts and his testimony.  If it goes bad...

I heard a really good point on talk radio this aft.  JWR and Jane Philpott resigned on principle and not policy differences or because they themselves did something bad.  That resonates with people.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: QV on March 04, 2019, 19:15:25
Could be I’m wrong- for the time being, we’ll have to see if this turns into real momentum. The possibility also exists that if cabinet revolts hard and fast, that may allow for consolidation in time for the election. But a cabinet shakeup and a couple resignations eight months out is not a definite death knell for the current government.

In case it’s been lost or forgotten, I do hope to see the LPC defeated in the next election, but I’m still going to be pragmatic and objective as I watch what’s happening.

Maybe.  Although, it's been many years since a sitting government has been rocked by this level of scandal...

While we are on predictions... If he doesn't just contradict JWR, I think it possible Gerry Butts will try and take full blame for all of this to save the PM.  But it's too late for that IMHO.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 04, 2019, 19:17:05
So do we get another MVA now? ;D

Better... The Minister Responsible for Spending Money (Public Services and Procurement Canada) has just been double-hatted as being also The Minister for Writing Cheques (President of the Treasury Board) - Carla Qualtrough -  Qhat type of Trough was that?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: QV on March 04, 2019, 19:19:28
Better... The Minister Responsible for Spending Money (Public Services and Procurement Canada) has just been double-hatted as being also The Minister for Writing Cheques (President of the Treasury Board) - Carla Qualtrough -  Qhat type of Trough was that?
I didn't think you could 32 and 33?  ;)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: PuckChaser on March 04, 2019, 20:05:45
I didn't think you could 32 and 33?  ;)
You're not supposed to use political pressure to get your friends off the hook on federal bribery charges either, but here we are.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 04, 2019, 21:09:08
QQ: if you were Bill Morneau, what action could you take right now to reclaim/ recover your reputation? Just watching him so solemn faced waiting for his Lordship to appear at the Climate Change rally.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 04, 2019, 21:21:35
Morneau on Philpott's resignation:

Quote
Shortly after Cabinet minister and Liberal MP Jane Philpott resigned from her post, Finance Minister Bill Morneau commented on her resignation.

Jane Philpott is a close personal friend of Jody Wilson-Raybould. She took a decision, I respect her decision. She was a good colleague, and she’ll take the decision that makes the most sense to her,” said Morneau.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/bill-morneau-says-philpott-resigned-because-she-was-a-close-personal-friend-with-jody-wilson-raybould/
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 04, 2019, 21:22:32
... If he doesn't just contradict JWR, I think it possible Gerry Butts will try and take full blame for all of this to save the PM.  But it's too late for that IMHO.
I'm going to put my loonie on the other side:  he's going to go down the, "at no time did I ever tell anyone to break the law - we were only looking for solutions" message track.

Also, paint me cynical, but remember as we hear more testimony that some say the difference between (1)  "I don't remember" and (2) "I don't recall" is that with (1), one looks in the filing cabinet that is one's memory, but there's no file to be found, while with (2), the file may or may not be there, but one chooses not to open the cabinet to look ;)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 04, 2019, 21:26:26
I would suggest that it is game.

(https://www.macleans.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/COV_APRIL_MACLEANS_DRE-225x300.jpg)

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/justin-trudeau-imposter/
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 04, 2019, 21:30:01
You don’t think that’s too much of a low shot??
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 04, 2019, 21:32:24
WHAT ABOUT ALBERTA JOBS?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-entitled-dpa-1.5042822

A 'deferred prosecution agreement' would allow the firm to avoid criminal prosecution
- 4 Mar 19

A Liberal MP says his party believes the SNC-Lavalin is "entitled" (there's that word again) to a deferred prosecution agreement — a legal mechanism that would allow the Quebec engineering firm to avoid criminal prosecution. "Our belief is that this company is one that is, like its competitors around the world, entitled to a deferred prosecution agreement, like they would be able to have access to in the U.K.," Steven MacKinnon, parliamentary secretary to the minister of Public Services and Procurement, told CBC News's Power & Politics today.

"The government's adopted approach on this is one that has favoured jobs, it's one that has favoured pensioners, supply chains and a major Canadian company - all innocent victims of some corrupt management maybe a decade ago." The Gatineau MP was speaking in the immediate aftermath of Jane Philpott's stunning resignation from cabinet earlier today. In a letter to the prime minister, the now former Treasury Board president said she's lost confidence in the way the Trudeau government has handled the growing SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Last week, former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould told a Commons justice committee she faced heavy political pressure and veiled threats from top Liberal officials who wanted her to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid a trial on bribery charges. SNC-Lavalin is facing corruption charges over contracts in Libya and was lobbying for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) as an alternative to criminal prosecution. DPAs allow companies to avoid criminal prosecution by paying hefty fines and, in some cases, agreeing to outside monitoring.

During her testimony, Wilson-Raybould, who resigned from cabinet last month, recounted how Kathleen Roussel, the director of the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC), let her know in early September 2018 that she was rejecting the company's request to negotiate a deferred prosecution. MacKinnon pointed to legislation that allows the attorney general to overturn a decision made by the director of public prosecutions.

"We do have a disagreement here. We absolutely have a disagreement here and I think the current attorney general has said that, look you have to keep assessing the facts as these cases move along," he said. "But the fact is that we have 10,000 Canadians and their families and pensioners and suppliers and others who are not entitled to the same kind relief they would get if they were to work for an SNC-Lavalin competitor in the United States or in the United Kingdom ...

"The disagreement goes to how you see how Canada ought to approach major economic questions like the SNC-Lavalin issue. Do we do it like our OECD partners, do with these deferred prosecution arrangements, that have been widely discussed? Or do we do it with a ... perhaps more rigid approach?" Deferred prosecution agreements ​became law in Canada in September of 2018. The SNC-Lavalin criminal case is now at the preliminary hearing stage. The company has pleaded not guilty.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 04, 2019, 21:32:51
You don’t think that’s too much of a low shot??

It might be.  But that is what Macleans is going with, under the lead of Paul Wells.

I also recall that it was Macleans that cemented Harper's reputation as "Scary" with a comparable cover.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 04, 2019, 21:35:26
That’s true.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 04, 2019, 21:55:46
Still above the fold @ the BBC as of ~20 minutes ago ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 04, 2019, 21:57:55
I'm going to put my loonie on the other side:  he's going to go down the, "at no time did I ever tell anyone to break the law - we were only looking for solutions."

I think you're right.  This, along with stressing her political inexperience, business naivete and misinterpretation of the "advice" she received from the PM, PMO will be the response he will give.  This will set the stage for the new AG to issue the DPA as a "course correction" for the government.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 04, 2019, 22:52:06
I think you're right.  This, along with stressing her political inexperience, business naivete and misinterpretation of the "advice" she received from the PM, PMO will be the response he will give.  This will set the stage for the new AG to issue the DPA as a "course correction" for the government.

Perhaps. But she can point out the reverse: Neither Trudeau, Telford or Butts - not even Wernick - have ANY background or knowledge of law. They ALL come from a 'soft' arts or social sciences background. They have no claim on knowing law or ethics better than she does.

She delivered a classic, well prepared (note I didn't say "rehearsed') court like testimony-in-chief statement, with everything you need to make it believable. Can any of the following "witnesses" who come from an arts background (and probably believe they know better than her just because of where they rose in life in politics) make such a powerful impact in their testimony?

Personally, I doubt it very much. But we will see, won't we?  :nod:





This could be a lot of fun.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: JesseWZ on March 05, 2019, 00:27:26
It's very odd to me that a DPA could even be considered in this case at all. At my office, we're often dealing with historical files where someone comes in to report a matter 20, 30 sometimes even 50 years old - as a first report. If we were to successfully locate the subject and grounds exist for charges, I cannot lay charges under the Criminal Code of today for an incident from back then - I have to use the Criminal Code as it existed at the time. If SNC Lavalin successfully lobbied the government (as it would appear to be the case) in 2018 to change the law, shouldn't it only apply from when it received Royal Assent moving forward and not retroactively apply to offences in the past? That's always been my understanding of the law...


Maybe FJAG can weigh in here...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: tomydoom on March 05, 2019, 03:41:25
It even made the news here in Ireland. RTÉ is the Irish equivalent to the CBC.

(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190305/2c3a9dfb34010654f58ba0b657868038.jpg)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 05, 2019, 08:24:10
Just as a quick set up/head's up, here's who's speaking when tomorrow (Wed 6 Mar) ...
Quote
Notice of meeting (http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-137/notice)
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)
42nd Parliament, 1st Session
 
Meeting 137
Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 10:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.
Room 415, Wellington Building, 197 Sparks Street
Televised
 
Remediation Agreements, the Shawcross Doctrine and the Discussions Between the Office of the Attorney General and Government Colleagues

Witnesses
As an individual
 Gerald Butts ...
Quote
Notice of meeting (http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-138/notice)
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)
42nd Parliament, 1st Session
 
Meeting 138
Wednesday, March 6, 2019, 2:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Room 415, Wellington Building, 197 Sparks Street
Televised
 
Remediation Agreements, the Shawcross Doctrine and the Discussions Between the Office of the Attorney General and Government Colleagues

Witnesses
Department of Justice
• Nathalie G. Drouin, Deputy Minister of Justice and Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Privy Council Office
• Michael Wernick, Clerk of the Privy Council and Secretary to the Cabinet ...
Canada's Cable Public Affairs Channel (http://www.cpac.ca/en/) usually has a good link to live feeds from these things.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 08:28:17
It's very odd to me that a DPA could even be considered in this case at all. At my office, we're often dealing with historical files where someone comes in to report a matter 20, 30 sometimes even 50 years old - as a first report. If we were to successfully locate the subject and grounds exist for charges, I cannot lay charges under the Criminal Code of today for an incident from back then - I have to use the Criminal Code as it existed at the time. If SNC Lavalin successfully lobbied the government (as it would appear to be the case) in 2018 to change the law, shouldn't it only apply from when it received Royal Assent moving forward and not retroactively apply to offences in the past? That's always been my understanding of the law...


Maybe FJAG can weigh in here...

My guess and it is only that, is that DPA is a sort of plea bargain mechanism.  So they can still be charged for something and prosecuted but the sentencing and plea bargain arrangement is what is different.

Imagine someone murdered a family at the time we had the death penalty.  That someone could be charged for a crime committed at that time.  But the sentence and plea bargain rules would be today's standard not the standard that applied back then no?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 08:30:12
Just as a quick set up/head's up, here's who's speaking when tomorrow (Wed 6 Mar) ...Canada's Cable Public Affairs Channel (http://bit.ly/2H6LzHv) usually has a good link to live feeds from these things.

Interesting.

I'll be paying attention toe what the DM has to say...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: dapaterson on March 05, 2019, 08:45:40
Interesting that the two who resigned are both members of regulated professions with standards for ethical behaviour.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 05, 2019, 08:52:42
https://globalnews.ca/news/5021267/trudeau-approval-rating-snc-lavalin-wilson-raybould/

March 4, 2019 9:42 pm

Most Canadians side with Wilson-Raybould, believe Trudeau has lost moral authority to govern: Ipsos poll

By Rahul Kalvapalle

A majority of Canadians are keeping tabs on the SNC-Lavalin affair and that doesn't bode well for Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, according to a new Ipsos poll conducted exclusively for Global News.

If an election were held tomorrow, Trudeau would receive only 31 per cent of the decided popular vote - down three points from a couple of weeks ago - while Conservative Party Leader Andrew Scheer would receive 40 per cent, according to the poll of 1,000 Canadians carried out between March 1 and March 4.

That's the biggest lead the Conservatives have had since the previous election campaign - and that's despite the fact that the polling data was obtained before Treasury Board President Jane Philpott resigned from Trudeau's cabinet on Monday, following in the heels of former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould and principal secretary Gerald Butts.

"This is the first time we've actually seen the Conservative Party resuscitated and looking like they could potentially form the government," said Darrell Bricker, CEO of Ipsos Public Affairs.

"The Liberals, on the other hand, have been dropping precipitously over the space of the last few weeks. The question is have they hit bottom yet?"

The national approval figures are mirrored in Canada's largest province, Ontario, where the Conservatives sit at 40 per cent, nine points over the Liberals, who are at 31 per cent.

Crucially, the Tories enjoy a commanding lead in the vote-rich 905 region surrounding Toronto.

<snip>

The polling also reveals that the ongoing SNC-Lavalin affair is directly responsible for Trudeau's flagging support.

Sixty-four per cent of Canadians say they're now following the issue - that's 15 points up from two weeks ago.

Most of them also say they believe the issue deserves all the attention it has been getting, compared to less than a third who say the matter is being blown out of proportion.

<snip>

A majority of Canadians - 55 per cent - also say it's going to influence their voting decisions in this year's federal election. That includes nearly one in five Liberal voters.

<snip>

"[Canadians] are coming to conclusions, and the conclusions they're coming to relate to the character of the main protagonist," said Bricker.

<snip>

Nearly a quarter of Liberal voters say they believe Trudeau should step aside while the SNC-Lavalin affair is investigated, with 73 per cent of Liberals agreeing that the RCMP should probe the issue and lay charges against politicians and bureaucrats where appropriate.

<snip>

Bricker says Trudeau is faced with three options: tough it out until the next election, step aside and let someone else lead the Liberal Party or call a snap election to clear the air.

Approval rating numbers suggest Trudeau would be well-advised not to take up Option 3.

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 05, 2019, 08:58:07
Imagine someone murdered a family at the time we had the death penalty.  That someone could be charged for a crime committed at that time.  But the sentence and plea bargain rules would be today's standard not the standard that applied back then no?

I have seen statutory rape cases where the age-of-consent in place at the time of the offence, as opposed to the the age-of-consent in place at the time of the charge or trial, was what the court considered.

Sentence is another matter, at least in the case of a punishment not currently available.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 09:06:43
I have seen statutory rape cases where the age-of-consent in place at the time of the offence, as opposed to the the age-of-consent in place at the time of the charge or trial, was what the court considered.

Sentence is another matter, at least in the case of a punishment not currently available.

That is sort of what I was getting at.  The crime and when it was perpetrated is one thing.  The sentencing and plea bargain system is another.

But I am out of my lane on this.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 05, 2019, 09:29:30
My expectation is that both Butts and Wernick will come out swinging tomorrow.  No apologies, no contrition.  Straight on the offensive towards JWR and possibly even Phillipot.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Journeyman on March 05, 2019, 09:32:59
Interesting that the two who resigned are both members of regulated professions with standards for ethical behaviour.

But according to this previous post (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,129826.msg1563681.html#msg1563681), Finance Minister Morneau never mentioned ethics, merely that "Jane Philpott is a close personal friend of Jody Wilson-Raybould."  You know how girls all go to the washroom in packs... same thing here.  Not even a hint of condescension in that.

    :pop:

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ModlrMike on March 05, 2019, 09:37:11
My expectation is that both Butts and Wernick will come out swinging tomorrow.  No apologies, no contrition.  Straight on the offensive towards JWR and possibly even Phillipot.

This may have the opposite effect of what's desired.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 05, 2019, 09:47:22
This may have the opposite effect of what's desired.

I never said it would work!  ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: JesseWZ on March 05, 2019, 12:05:43
My guess and it is only that, is that DPA is a sort of plea bargain mechanism.  So they can still be charged for something and prosecuted but the sentencing and plea bargain arrangement is what is different.

Imagine someone murdered a family at the time we had the death penalty.  That someone could be charged for a crime committed at that time.  But the sentence and plea bargain rules would be today's standard not the standard that applied back then no?

I’ve never seen the system work that way... for example, we charged someone with child pornography offences in 2016 for offences that took place prior to the change and addition of mandatory minimum sentencing. Even though the charges, trial and verdict were all within the new sentencing regime, the old sentencing regime (from the time of the offence) was used.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Technoviking on March 05, 2019, 12:24:55
The Prime Minister is returning to Ottawa.  Story here (https://globalnews.ca/news/5022253/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-jody-wilson-raybould-jane-philpott/).
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 12:38:13
I’ve never seen the system work that way... for example, we charged someone with child pornography offences in 2016 for offences that took place prior to the change and addition of mandatory minimum sentencing. Even though the charges, trial and verdict were all within the new sentencing regime, the old sentencing regime (from the time of the offence) was used.

Well I'll defer to someone who knows.  I doubt we would sentence anyone to death for crimes committed when we still had the death penalty on the books.  Seems odd.   
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: YZT580 on March 05, 2019, 13:02:25
I give Trudeau one more week to get things under control.  If he is unable to stop the blood-letting the folks who pull the strings will engineer a spontaneous uprising of those parliamentarians who are members of the liberal party.  In turn they will select an alternative leader and then inform the governor-general that Trudeau has lost the support of parliament and a new leader will take over.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: MilEME09 on March 05, 2019, 13:04:36
I give Trudeau one more week to get things under control.  If he is unable to stop the blood-letting the folks who pull the strings will engineer a spontaneous uprising of those parliamentarians who are members of the liberal party.  In turn they will select an alternative leader and then inform the governor-general that Trudeau has lost the support of parliament and a new leader will take over.

Or enough liberal MPs break ranks of this gets worse, non-confidence happens and the government falls.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 05, 2019, 13:44:30
Or enough liberal MPs break ranks of this gets worse, non-confidence happens and the government falls.
Next confidence votes aren't all that far away (https://www.fin.gc.ca/n19/19-015-eng.asp) ...  :whistle:

Right now, I'm betting there's nowhere near enough Team Red MP's willing to change sides to vote 'er down on a whipped vote (which budget votes are).  Mind you, one interesting question coming to mind is:  how much sanction can a party leader mete out if they're no longer PM after a shoulda-been-whipped-but-didn't-end-up-whipped confidence vote?

But like someone said earlier ...
Given the current rate of change, we must amend "A week is a long time in politics" to read "A day is a long time in politics."
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: kratz on March 05, 2019, 13:54:52
I'm enjoying my popcorn and watching this issue, along with the Admiral's and other issues implode on the PM.

I had my predictions in 2015, but nothing this entertaining.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 05, 2019, 14:04:50
I give Trudeau one more week to get things under control.

What makes you say things are out of control?  "Sunny Ways", remember?  This is part of his master plan for another majority.   :Tin-Foil-Hat:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 05, 2019, 14:12:37
Scummy Ways I believe.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 14:28:14
The LPC can get out of this but not without some scars.

Damage control and spin required.

1.  Get in front of this.  Admit to applying pressure but with good intentions to save jobs, apologise to JRW for what she went through and insist that nothing illegal happened but that there was a breach of ethical standard and that they will do better.

2. Welcome any police investigation should it happen.

3.  Pass a bill separating the AG and Justice minister role and tell everyone that this is being done to avoid mistakes.  Offer JWR her choice for which one she wants to do.  Maybe offer her the more independent AG role.  Heck get her to spearhead a LPC code of ethics and stick to it.

4. Get away from the Trudeau brand and develop a Liberal brand.  Trudeau's brand has taken too much of a hit.

Hope you've done enough to squeak out a win in the fall. 

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 05, 2019, 15:11:03
1.  Get in front of this.  Admit to applying pressure but with good intentions to save jobs, apologize to JWR for what she went through and insist that nothing illegal happened but that there was a breach of ethical standard and that they will do better.

This might be where Butts and Wernick will head tomorrow.

2. Welcome any police investigation should it happen.
  And hope it's not concluded before election day.

3.  Pass a bill separating the AG and Justice minister role and tell everyone that this is being done to avoid mistakes.  Offer JWR her choice for which one she wants to do.  Maybe offer her the more independent AG role.  Heck get her to spearhead a LPC code of ethics and stick to it.
  An idea which will be pointed out
 to have been plagiarized from the Conservatives of Stephen Harper?  Not a chance!

4. Get away from the Trudeau brand and develop a Liberal brand.  Trudeau's brand has taken too much of a hit.
The personality politics cult won't allow this.  The Trudeau brand won the last election.  Nice socks and great hair, remember?

Hope you've done enough to squeak out a win in the fall.
  I think the best they can hope for now is a minority.  Not a win, really, but buys them four years to rebuild without having to accomplish anything governmentally.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 15:24:31
This might be where Butts and Wernick will head tomorrow.
  And hope it's not concluded before election day.
  An idea which will be pointed out
 to have been plagiarized from the Conservatives of Stephen Harper?  Not a chance!
 The personality politics cult won't allow this.  The Trudeau brand won the last election.  Nice socks and great hair, remember?
  I think the best they can hope for now is a minority.  Not a win, really, but buys them four years to rebuild without having to accomplish anything governmentally.

Not saying they will do all of that.

As far as a police investigation they could take a chance that the RCMP isn't even going to investigate. But just saying you welcome it is about optics.

Personality politics only works if the brand works.  The band is broken and likely beyond repair.  You get more votes by sending JWR in contested ridings as she is a better face of the party.  The CPC tried to rely on the Harper brand and it failed them in the end. 

Plagiarising is a common thing in politics.  They can just claim the CPC couldn't get it done so they did and popint to other Westminster nations that have done the same.  It wasn't a CPC idea in the first place.

But I think they will screw it up anyways and things might go from worse to worser.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 05, 2019, 15:30:56
The LPC can get out of this but not without some scars.

Damage control and spin required.

1.  Get in front of this.  Admit to applying pressure but with good intentions to save jobs, apologise to JRW for what she went through and insist that nothing illegal happened but that there was a breach of ethical standard and that they will do better.

2. Welcome any police investigation should it happen.

3.  Pass a bill separating the AG and Justice minister role and tell everyone that this is being done to avoid mistakes.  Offer JWR her choice for which one she wants to do.  Maybe offer her the more independent AG role.  Heck get her to spearhead a LPC code of ethics and stick to it.

4. Get away from the Trudeau brand and develop a Liberal brand.  Trudeau's brand has taken too much of a hit.

Hope you've done enough to squeak out a win in the fall.

Fortunately or unfortunately, depending what you're looking for, the trudeau brand is the liberal brand. The party is likely to wear this for much longer than they had to suffer under his dad's former image. The PM is a Lauretien Elite and is marking the rest of the elites with his image. They've always managed to stay hidden in plain sight while operating the country for their own benefit. Problems and favoritism, with Bombardier and SNC among them. People are seeing things clearer with things like the PMs Trust Fund people also on the board of SNC. The amount of previous Quebec PMs and other politicians now on the payroll of Power Corp and it's subsidiaries is an eye opener for anyone that wants to take a shot of unraveling Power Corps sphere of influence. 

People are starting to see the tangled web that the LE's have spun, how they've taken advantage of everyday Canadians as a matter of course.

The face of the Laurentien Elites and the grit party is Trudeau and he is doing serious damage to the brand.

Bob Rae's hamfisted attempt at premiership of Ontario has followed the provincial NDP like an albatross standing on the millstone around their neck.

Trudeau and the liberals are about to suffer the same fate. The grits will be know as the party of trudeau and hold the jaundiced eye of the electorate for a long, long time.

I almost expect Bernier to have a better showing than the grits and I have no time for him either.

Just me spitballin'
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 15:57:38
That's danger of attaching a personality to a party.  They may well be too entrenched now to get away but I can't see how staying with the brand will help unless they seriously reinvent JT.  I don't see that happening as he is a bit 2 dimensional for that.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 05, 2019, 16:00:32
... Bob Rae's hamfisted attempt at premiership of Ontario has followed the provincial NDP like an albatross standing on the millstone around their neck.  Trudeau and the liberals are about to suffer the same fate. The grits will be know as the party of trudeau and hold the jaundiced eye of the electorate for a long, long time ...
Don't know if it'll be as bad, but for sure in the same direction.

On that, the following, with some key caveats:  1)  Only one poll.  2)  LONG time to election day.  3)  We've seen polls predict less than ideally in the past.  All that said, another tile in the info-mosaic via Ipsos ...
Quote
Liberals (31%, -3) Shed Support as Tories (40%, +4) Capitalize in Wake of Jody Wilson-Raybould Testimony

Canadians Siding Decidedly with Wilson-Raybould (67%) over Trudeau (33%); Majority (62%) Agrees Prime Minister Has Lost Moral Authority to Govern

The Liberals are continuing to shed vote support in the wake of the SNC-Lavalin affair and the testimony of former Attorney General and Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould to the House of Commons Justice Committee.

If an election were held tomorrow, the Liberals under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would receive 31% of the decided popular vote, down 3 points since Ipsos’ most recent poll two weeks ago. The Conservatives under Andrew Scheer would receive 40% of the vote, up 4 points. Jagmeet Singh’s NDP would receive 20% of the popular vote (up 3 points), while the Bloc would receive 4% of the vote nationally (19% in Quebec), down 2 points. Other parties, including the Green Party, would receive 5% of the vote (down 2 points). Overall, two in ten Canadians say they are undecided (9%) or simply would not consider voting (8%).

(...)

Given what they’ve heard to date, 67% of Canadians say they believe Jody Wilson-Raybould more, while 33% say they believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau more. Even one in three (33%) Liberal voters say they believe the former Attorney General more than the Prime Minister. Moreover, three quarters (75%) of Canadians agree (28% strongly/47% somewhat) that they believe there was inappropriate political interference placed on Jody Wilson-Raybould by senior people in government, including 56% of Liberal voters ...
More @ Ipsos's info-machine here (https://www.ipsos.com/en-ca/news-polls/Liberals-Shed-Support-Tories-Capitalize-in-Wake-of-Jody-Wilson-Raybould-Testimony).
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 05, 2019, 16:09:00
Oh they'll want to change it, I'm sure. He just can't be reinvented though. Too far gone.

The problem is not what they want or or what they do.

It is the Canadian public that won't let them change the channel.

I'm seeing hate and venom for him and the grits unlike I've seen before. Even with his old man. 20 and 30 somethings are voicing their disgust for him and they'll be voting for another 50 years. He is fast becoming a pariah.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 16:37:03
Oh they'll want to change it, I'm sure. He just can't be reinvented though. Too far gone.

The problem is not what they want or or what they do.

It is the Canadian public that won't let them change the channel.

I'm seeing hate and venom for him and the grits unlike I've seen before. Even with his old man. 20 and 30 somethings are voicing their disgust for him and they'll be voting for another 50 years. He is fast becoming a pariah.

Look at us agreeing.

Dogs are meowing, cats are barking.   ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 05, 2019, 16:39:34
Oh they'll want to change it, I'm sure. He just can't be reinvented though. Too far gone.

The problem is not what they want or or what they do.

It is the Canadian public that won't let them change the channel.

I'm seeing hate and venom for him and the grits unlike I've seen before. Even with his old man. 20 and 30 somethings are voicing their disgust for him and they'll be voting for another 50 years. He is fast becoming a pariah.

He got in by playing on people's hope for something better.  Aside from the cult of personality, I think a lot of people were genuinely optimistic that his 'sunny ways' pitch was going to be a real change. He hasn't done anything particularly out of the realm of the low bar we set for our politicians, but his problem is he got in on a virtue card.

You can do a lot of things, but dashing people's hope is not something you can recover from; that inspires straight up hate.

The only thing I could see that would get people back onside would be a large resignation/firing of the politicians/PS involved, Trudeau stepping down, and total shakeup of the way the PMO runs things.  Can't see that happening, but personally I'd probably consider voting liberal if JWR were at the helm. I don't have any dedicated party support, but found her believable and was refreshing to see someone with integrity.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 16:42:11
Trudeau might be changing his tune on the whole affair.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-raybould-philpott-snc-lavalin-1.5043763

One of the steps I stated he might need to do.  Might not be enough but we'll see. Probably should have done that to begin with.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 05, 2019, 16:58:45
... One of the steps I stated he might need to do.  Might not be enough but we'll see. Probably should have done that to begin with.
Especially this bit from the CBC piece:  "show some ownership over the actions of his staff and officials".

We'll see - thanks for that link.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: QV on March 05, 2019, 17:03:39
Enter Butts and Wernick to accept all blame, the PM didn't know the scope to which they pressured, how dare they... the Deputy AG testifies it wasn't criminal but awfully inappropriate, a few people go under the forced resignation bus, but no criminal charges.  Could this happen?  Is this enough to change the channel in time? 



 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on March 05, 2019, 17:07:10
Trudeau might be changing his tune on the whole affair.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-raybould-philpott-snc-lavalin-1.5043763

One of the steps I stated he might need to do.  Might not be enough but we'll see. Probably should have done that to begin with.

It's this quote that gives me trouble:

Quote
A senior government official said one of the options being discussed is for Trudeau to "show some ownership over the actions of his staff and officials" in their dealings with his former attorney general, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

In effect the line seems to be that as leader he should take responsibility for what his staff did. Fair enough, BUT: its strikes me that what they did was at his direct order. This isn't taking ownership for their actions but fessing up the fact that he's the one behind the whole thing in the first place. I doubt that he'll do that considering how quickly Butts was thrown overboard. If anyone should go it's the Golden Boy himself but I doubt that he will because I think he's too arrogant to let go of his position. He should be joined by Wernick whose veneer of independence is forever stained.

 :2c:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: DetectiveMcNulty on March 05, 2019, 17:15:23
I was overseas when Trudeau got elected...I totally bet my Dad via a crappy connection that Trudeau would do two terms because our country was so shallow.

Now I may actually have to pay up...  ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 05, 2019, 17:25:22
... its strikes me that what they did was at his direct order ...
As direct an order as can be proven, without cross examining the orderer...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 05, 2019, 17:37:56
Warren Kinsella .....

Quote
Morons. They leak that they’re THINKING about apologizing - thereby ensuring it looks like a cynical comms tactic. Why not just DO it, and be genuine for once? “Trudeau considering a statement of contrition over SNC-Lavalin” #cdnpoli #lavscam

12:55 PM - 5 Mar 2019

https://twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/1103036352516575233

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: QV on March 05, 2019, 18:42:05
Liberal MP Leona Alleslev just crossed the floor.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ModlrMike on March 05, 2019, 18:46:11
 On September 17, 2018, she crossed the floor.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 05, 2019, 18:46:49
Will he feign anger or shed a contrite tear?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 05, 2019, 18:51:24
Liberal MP Leona Alleslev just crossed the floor.

She crossed in sept.  Did she cross back again?  ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 05, 2019, 19:12:42
The Prime Minister is returning to Ottawa.  Story here (https://globalnews.ca/news/5022253/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-jody-wilson-raybould-jane-philpott/).
Conflicting narratives are emerging on this move.  The PMO says he cancelled the visit.  Other sources (https://leaderpost.com/news/local-news/prime-minister-justin-trudeau-cancels-regina-visit) say due to protests, the GM of the Canadian Tire store he was to visit said he was no longer welcome there.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 05, 2019, 19:22:43
McKenna was in Windsor today. They're going full press on climate change trying to change the channel. Both her and freeland stated their support. "I have full confidence in the PM." Both the same, both given without qualification or question.

She was asked about Philpot and JWR. "Two strong women with a different perspective of what really happened."

Isnt that pretty well what trudeau said about the reporter in the Kokanee Groper case?

The more they try make it go away, the worse it gets.

Tarred,  feathered and run out of town on a rail might be too tame for the liberal party in Canadians views.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 05, 2019, 19:30:20
Warren Kinsella .....

https://twitter.com/kinsellawarren/status/1103036352516575233
Wow! Kinsella and Ledrew have a Sergeant sized hate on for team Trudeau. Meanwhile, I just watched Sheila Copps rip Dr. P and JWR, calling for their removal from the LPC, basically (without saying it) colored them as carpet baggers.
While the old saying hell hath no fury etc., I've been looking at the back grounds of DMs and Department heads and advisors to both of these former Ministers of the Crown. It seems they both have assembled quite the collage of seething, indignant feminists in their departments. For those thinking/wishing JWR for PM, be careful what you wish for.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ModlrMike on March 05, 2019, 19:41:31
I think that it's somewhat telling given Mr Kinsella's political pedigree.

Warren Kinsella (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Kinsella) - Wikipedia

Of course, Sheila Copps has the opposing view that Ms Wilson-Raybould  and Dr Philpott should be ejected from the LPC.

 :pop: indeed
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: YZT580 on March 05, 2019, 19:46:29
Trudeau might be changing his tune on the whole affair.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudeau-raybould-philpott-snc-lavalin-1.5043763

One of the steps I stated he might need to do.  Might not be enough but we'll see. Probably should have done that to begin with.
  First thing he is going to have to do is either stop lying or learn to lie effectively: he will probably take lessons on the later.  His initial statement said that he had been talking to Philpott and while he regretted her departure he understood her loyalty to her friend.  Now the headline says he knew nothing about it.
That illustrates the greatest problem he is going to have in making a recovery.  Once you have proven yourself an habitual liar it is hard maybe impossible to gain any credibility at all. I still give him one week.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 05, 2019, 20:01:33
Credibility with who? The 5% of Canadians who give a crap about that versus what next can I get out of this dude before he's not PM anymore.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 05, 2019, 20:31:24
Credibility with who? The 5% of Canadians who give a crap about that versus what next can I get out of this dude before he's not PM anymore.

Nailed it!  95% of Canadians won't care about this story until it interrupts a hockey game.  Then, it'll be pitchforks and hockey sticks for Trudeau.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: dapaterson on March 05, 2019, 21:42:58
March 19: Federal budget with some nifty new things.

March 26: "To execute this agenda to support and build the middle class, we are returning to the people for a fresh mandate"

May 14: The Running of the Reptiles.


This prediction, plus $2, will get you a large double-double at Timmies.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 05, 2019, 22:11:45
Nailed it!  95% of Canadians won't care about this story until it interrupts a hockey game.  Then, it'll be pitchforks and hockey sticks for Trudeau.
I know anecdote =/= singular of data, but a TON of people I know who don't usually care about politics are into this, one side or another.  YMMV
March 19: Federal budget with some nifty new things.

March 26: "To execute this agenda to support and build the middle class, we are returning to the people for a fresh mandate"

May 14: The Running of the Reptiles.


This prediction, plus $2, will get you a large double-double at Timmies.
VERY interesting - see attached :)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 05, 2019, 23:29:48
There have been two factions (eg. Trudeau/Chretien, Turner/Martin) in the LPC for a few decades now.  It's not clear to me who composes the latter group at present.  Without knowing who they are, what their strength is, and what direction they might want to take the party, it's difficult to countenance any of the hypothetical scenarios about what Trudeau et al might do to smooth things over.  The sharpest knives out against the LPC are often those of one faction in the party pitted against the other.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: dapaterson on March 05, 2019, 23:48:06
It's been interesting to see old-school power at any price Liberals (Sheila Copps, I'm talking about you) come out of the woodwork.

Normally, a party has to lose an election to go into deep soul searching mode.  This "Do what we must to retain power" vs "We have principles and ethics" confrontation spilling out and being fought in public is an interesting change from normal internal party politics.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: YZT580 on March 06, 2019, 07:41:18
There have been two factions (eg. Trudeau/Chretien, Turner/Martin) in the LPC for a few decades now.  It's not clear to me who composes the latter group at present.  Without knowing who they are, what their strength is, and what direction they might want to take the party, it's difficult to countenance any of the hypothetical scenarios about what Trudeau et al might do to smooth things over.  The sharpest knives out against the LPC are often those of one faction in the party pitted against the other.
Someone or some group within the party certainly is out for blood.  Telegraphing his possible tactics in advance has just eliminated the owning up to it route for Justin. Now it will only make him appear more opportunistic.  I'm guessing a palace coup and it will be arbitrated by his own faction.  Chretien and co. will not support Trudeau but will initiate the lynching if they see any way of staving off losing power.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 06, 2019, 08:41:46
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/05/news/snc-lavalin-lawyer-iacobucci-urged-resign-trudeaus-trans-mountain-envoy

SNC-Lavalin lawyer Iacobucci urged to resign as Trudeau's Trans Mountain envoy

By Alastair Sharp in News, Energy, Politics | March 5th 2019

Frank Iacobucci's name popped up a couple of times in Jody Wilson-Raybould's bombshell Feb. 27 testimony before the House of Commons justice committee about allegations of political interference in her last months as attorney general of Canada.

Some First Nations in British Columbia will also recognize the name from recent invitations to attend talks about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion project.

Iacobucci is a retired Supreme Court justice and lawyer for Torys LLP, whom Quebec engineering and construction company SNC-Lavalin hired to help it secure a plea deal and avoid a criminal conviction on corruption charges.

Wilson-Raybould told the Commons committee that his name came up during a conversation between a member of her staff and Ben Chin, chief of staff to Finance Minister Bill Morneau on Sept. 11, when Chin "noted" that the retired judge was representing the Quebec company.

About a week later, Wilson-Raybould heard his name again during a chat with the government's top public servant, Michael Wernick, who is clerk of the Privy Council Office in Canada.

"The clerk brought up job losses and that this is not about the Quebec election or the PM being a Montreal MP," Wilson-Raybould said, recounting a Sept. 19 meeting with Wernick. "He said that he understands that SNC is going back and forth with the (director of public prosecutions), that they want more information. He said that 'Iacobucci is not a shrinking violet.'"

Two weeks after that meeting, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government announced a new job for Iacobucci on Oct. 3, 2018. The retired judge, still representing SNC-Lavalin, was now being appointed as Trudeau's special envoy for discussions with First Nations in British Columbia about the Trans Mountain expansion project.

<snip>

Now, a prominent First Nations leader in British Columbia says it's time for the retired Supreme Court justice to quit one of those two jobs.

"I do not feel that Justice Iacobucci can negotiate with those whose consent must be freely granted before the Trans Mountain project can proceed, since it's unclear whose interests he is really representing," Chief Judy Wilson, the secretary-treasury of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), told National Observer in a telephone interview on Monday.

"We're unclear if the Liberal government even realizes the conflict, but we call upon the federal government to ask Frank Iacobucci to step down from one of these positions," said Wilson, a representative of the ???Neskonlith Indian Band within the Secwepemc Nation.

<snip>

https://nationalpost.com/news/snc-lavalin-ceo-urged-cabinet-to-change-policies-expeditiously-in-2017-letter

SNC-Lavalin CEO urged cabinet to change anti-corruption policies 'expeditiously' in 2017 letter

The letter, obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information law, shows a high-level push for policy changes to help the engineering and construction giant avoid prosecution

Andy Blatchford

March 5, 2019 5:03 PM EST

OTTAWA - The head of SNC-Lavalin told the Canadian government it had to change its anti-corruption rules "as expeditiously as possible" in a 2017 letter to the minister in charge of procurement, just as her department was helping oversee public consultations on lighter punishments for corporate misconduct.

SNC-Lavalin CEO Neil Bruce wrote to Public Services Minister Carla Qualtrough on Oct. 13, 2017 and sent copies of his message to seven other senior cabinet ministers.

Bruce also attached his company's official submission for the consultations, which were examining possible changes to the "integrity regime" and the potential creation of a plea-bargain-type tool known as a deferred-prosecution agreement or remediation agreement.

<snip>

The letter, obtained by The Canadian Press under access-to-information law, shows a high-level push for policy changes to help the engineering and construction giant avoid prosecution.

<snip>

SNC-Lavalin lobbied federal officials, including in the Prime Minister's Office, to put remediation agreements into the law.

A few months after the public consultations in fall 2017, the Trudeau government included the Criminal Code amendment creating the agreements in last spring's 582-page omnibus budget bill.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5023506/liberal-steve-mackinnon-snc-lavalin-entitled-remediation/

March 5, 2019 3:20 pm

Liberal Steve MacKinnon walking back claim SNC-Lavalin ‘entitled' to avoid criminal trial

By Amanda Connolly

Gatineau Liberal MP Steve MacKinnon is walking back his claim that SNC-Lavalin is "entitled" to a deferred prosecution deal to avoid criminal trial.

Speaking in a scrum following a speech in Ottawa on Tuesday, MacKinnon said his remarks on CBC's Power & Politics on Monday night were an "unfortunate choice of words" but stressed his sentiments for why he thinks the firm should get a deal remain the same.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/trudeau-talking-points-1.5044266

Trudeau's verbal porridge and serene smile have carried him along. Until now: Neil Macdonald

He either doesn't think the public deserves a straight answer, or just isn't capable of delivering one

Neil Macdonald CBC News Posted: Mar 06, 2019 4:00 AM ET

If you're looking for some instructive reading, go look up an aggregation of utterances by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Some are already famous for their loopiness: budgets balance themselves, the government shouldn't call honour killings barbaric, we need to rethink the definitions of space and time, we should say "peoplekind" instead of "mankind" (he may actually have been making fun of himself with that one).

Most, though, are just syrupy, unmemorable banalities about values and optimism and respect and caring for one another.

Like this masterpiece of tautology the day he was sworn in as prime minister: "The diversity that makes this country so strong is a diversity of views that will carry us forward."

Trudeau's happy blather was digestible enough at first, particularly after nearly a decade of Stephen Harper. Like tapioca after heartburn. But as it kept coming, picked up and amplified by his cabinet ministers, it began grating on the nerves, the way retail Christmas-carol Muzak does by late November.

Eventually, it became clear that our prime minister didn't really have much else to say. He relies more heavily on talking points than any Canadian leader in my memory (40-plus years), his answers swollen with extraneous words and catchphrases crafted by his messaging experts.

He and his ministers are capable of answering nearly any question with some vow of support for "the middle class and those who are working so hard to join it," an annoyingly meaningless phrase that's become a banner for his government.

In any case, this verbal porridge, delivered with a serene smile, has carried him along. Until now.

With his government sinking into a self-inflicted crisis, it's beginning to appear that Justin Trudeau simply doesn't have the intellectual acuity to cope.

Look at his response to the testimony of Jody Wilson-Raybould last week. She had just finished delivering a measured, unambiguous indictment, accusing him and his staff of attempting to pervert justice for political gain.

He could have answered his former justice minister fact for fact. Instead, Trudeau appeared a few hours later in Montreal, two rows of nervously smiling party volunteers arranged behind him, a newly elected MP standing haplessly to the side. His statements were as stilted and contrived as the optics.

"We will stand up and defend and create jobs, and we will always defend our institutions and rule of law."

<snip>

This is a man who either doesn't think the public deserves a straight answer, or just isn't capable of delivering one.

And there was the flicker of condescension he's shown before; it was important, he said, that Wilson-Raybould be able to speak, and he was glad he'd allowed her to.

Uh-huh. He was glad.

It was much the same performance this week, after Jane Philpott followed Wilson-Raybould out the cabinet door, declaring she could not square her constitutional obligations as a minister of the Crown with the evidence she'd seen of political interference.

A few hours later, at a rally in Toronto to gin up support for a carbon tax, Trudeau made a manic entrance, grinning and high-fiving and flesh-pressing and trying to look happy, before grabbing Environment Minister Catherine McKenna in an awkward hug, and, puzzlingly, yelling, at a Liberal rally, "Are there any Liberals in the house?"

Then, more empty message track.

"In a democracy like ours and in a space where we value our diversity so strongly, we're allowed to have disagreements and debate, we even encourage it. This matter has generated an important discussion."

Oh, and also, he's taking it all seriously. So there's that.

<snip>

Actually, there are more honest moments in the pantheon of Trudeau's quotations than in any of his performances in the past few weeks.

Back in 2013, former Global anchorman Tom Clark asked Trudeau about his intellectual substance.

His answer: "You know, I'm not going to go around reciting Pi to the 19th decibel or you know wave my grades, or test scores to people. I'm going to simply do what it is that I have to do." Most people can't recite Pi to any decibel, let alone decimal.

In another encounter with Clark a year later, this time jammed into the cabin of Clark's little airplane, he talked about the necessity of educating people (read: all of us).

"I am a teacher. It's how I define myself. A good teacher isn't someone who gives the answers out to their kids but is understanding of needs and challenges and gives tools to help other people succeed."

To the National Post's John Ivison, he declared: "Who cares about winning? We should focus on serving." (Actually, according to Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau cares a great deal about winning, to the point where he's ready to overturn a prosecutor's decision, if that's what it takes).

But it was to CTV that he was probably most candid.

"At one point," he told the program W5, "people are going to have to realize that maybe I know what I'm doing."

Or not. On the evidence of the past few weeks, I'm thinking not.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-trudeaus-liberals-are-disappointed-in-a-leader-found-wanting-but-hes-still-their-best-shot-at-re-election

John Ivison: Liberals are disappointed in a leader ‘found wanting,' but Trudeau still has a way out of crisis
Nothing will be the same again for Trudeau. The spell has been broken and the idea that he could be a one-term wonder is no longer implausible

John Ivison   

March 5, 2019 6:10 PM EST

The Liberal Party's impulse to form a circular firing squad has created a moment in Canada's political history that could change everything.

What John Stuart Mill called "the deep slumber of decided opinion" has been disrupted and the public roused. The sense that Justin Trudeau was pre-destined to be prime minister for as long as he wished has been shaken and it is entirely conceivable that he loses the election seven months from now.

<snip>

There is a belief that the cabinet is united behind a prime minister who spent much of the afternoon discussing options for future action. But, if cabinet has expressed support for Trudeau, caucus is restive.

One senior MP, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the overriding mood is of disappointment in the prime minister's leadership. "The caucus is united in a desire to get re-elected. It is not necessarily united in a desire to be elected behind him," they said.

Another MP said Trudeau should survive this storm, "but not without damage."

There are no signs of a leadership challenge - yet. The question the prime minister must mull is: for how long?

<snip>

Nothing will bury this story but if this prime minister is going to survive, he has to send public opinion back into a deep slumber. That would rule out booting Philpott and Wilson-Raybould from caucus, which would lead to a media feeding frenzy.

The public mood may get worse before it gets better. Editorial cartoonists have portrayed Wilson-Raybould as Tank Man, the Chinese student who stood in front of a column of tanks during the Tiananmen Square protest in 1989.

<snip>

Butts and Wernick are going to have to be persuasive if they are going to sway public opinion from the former justice minister's narrative, which many Canadians have taken as gospel.

More importantly for the Liberals, Trudeau needs to demonstrate to his caucus and the country that he can handle a crisis he has helped to agitate.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/05/why-does-trudeau-seem-to-be-always-caught-off-guard.html

Why does Trudeau seem to be always caught off guard?

By Susan DelacourtNational Columnist

Tues., March 5, 2019

In a rollicking couple of months filled with surprise developments for Justin Trudeau, one enduring question lingers - why does the prime minister keep being surprised?

<snip>

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/could-the-liberal-caucus-turf-justin-trudeau-if-they-wanted-maybe-but-not-easily

Could the Liberal caucus turf Justin Trudeau, if they wanted to? Maybe, but not easily

Here's a breakdown of how the Liberals could theoretically turf Trudeau, why it's so complicated, and how other countries do it differently

Maura Forrest

March 5, 2019 7:38 PM EST

OTTAWA - Since Jane Philpott's resignation from cabinet on Monday, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's remaining ministers have rallied around him, declaring he still has their support.

Many backbench MPs have also said they still have faith in the prime minister, despite the fallout from the SNC-Lavalin controversy.

Still, there are some rumblings of uncertainty. On Tuesday morning, Toronto Liberal MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith told the CBC that he wants to hear more about the kind of pressure that was brought to bear on former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to negotiate an agreement with the Quebec engineering giant that would have avoided a criminal prosecution on corruption charges. "If in the end it's found that the intervention was made for naked partisan gain and electoral gain, then that would cause me to lose some confidence," he said.

"I will say this inquiry is not complete, and I can imagine a situation where if it winds up in one place I'll be very happy to run again, and if it winds up in another place, I may well find myself as a lawyer again instead."

<snip>

Trudeau gives his best explanation of everything ever: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnTMK-ykZPk
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 06, 2019, 10:50:27
Good links Loachman.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 06, 2019, 11:15:51
Thanks Loachman.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 06, 2019, 11:21:41
Did you notice Loachman posted that article link 2 hours ago?

I did not.  I'll remove it.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2019, 11:28:36
Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Chief Bill Wilson

Chief Judy Wilson, chief of the Neskonlith Indian Band in B.C, the secretary-treasury of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC)

I know that Bill Wilson is Ms Jody Wilson-Raybould's father.

Does anyone know if there is any relationship to Chief Judy Wilson?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 06, 2019, 13:15:55
If you want to follow what Butts is telling the committee, CPAC's Twitter feed (https://twitter.com/cpac_tv) continues to give good gems via CPAC's reporter on the scene ...
Quote
Liberal @R_Boissonnault asks @gmbutts why PMO kept speaking to @Puglaas on SNC-Lavalin if her decision was already made. Butts repeats that he was not aware that she had made a decision on the matter.

Was there a concerted effort within PMO to make @Puglaas change her mind? "No," says @gmbutts. He says it is "inconceivable" to him that Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard would engage in such behaviour, describing them as "sterling" lawyers.

.@ColinFraserMP now asking about @gmbutts's Dec. 5 meeting with @Puglaas at the Château Laurier. Butts says she's the one who brought up the issue of SNC-Lavalin, says he can't recall* her mentioning any pressure on her or her staff.

“What possibly could you have understood [@Puglaas's] answer to be other than ‘no,’” asks @Cooper4SAE, on repeated attempts to get an outside legal opinion. @gmbutts says he was not pressuring anyone "in any shape or form" to overturn their decision.

If this was wrong, why are we having this conservation now, rather than in September, October, November, asks @gmbutts, appearing to suggest again that @Puglaas did not raise her concerns sufficiently early on.

Rankin raises the Dec. 5 meeting between @gmbutts and @Puglaas, where she reportedly spoke of a “barrage” of people “hounding” her and her staff. @gmbutts says he has no recollection* of Wilson-Raybould saying such a thing.

PMO wanted attorney general to seek "independent advice" from external jurists; says "that was the entirety of our advice to the attorney gen., which we made clear she was free to accept or not"; says AG was also free to accept/reject the external advice

#DenyDeflect

* - Remember that "remember vs. recall" thing? ;)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 06, 2019, 13:19:25
If you want to follow what Butts is telling the committee, CPAC's Twitter feed (http://bit.ly/2Xs26M5) continues to give good gems via CPAC's reporter on the scene ...
#DenyDeflect

* - Remember that "remember vs. recall" thing? ;)

She made notes. He didn't. Guess who I'm more inclined to believe?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 06, 2019, 13:26:18
She made notes. He didn't. Guess who I'm more inclined to believe?
You're far from alone ...

Also, the attached is making the rounds of social media as well (this happened with others, too - see second attachment - while nobody asked JWR to swear in according to the official transcript (http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/JUST/meeting-135/evidence)) -- here's what "the rules" (https://www.ourcommons.ca/About/Compendium/Committees/c_d_witnessesappearingbeforecommittee-e.htm) say:
Quote
... Swearing-in of Witnesses

A witness appearing before a committee may be required to take an oath or make a solemn affirmation; however, under normal circumstances, witnesses are not sworn in. The decision as to the swearing-in of witnesses is entirely at the discretion of the committee. A witness who refuses to be sworn in might face a charge of contempt. Likewise, the refusal to answer questions or failure to reply truthfully may give rise to a charge of contempt of the House, whether the witness has been sworn in or not. In addition, witnesses who lie under oath may be charged with perjury.

(...)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 06, 2019, 13:58:37
Not putting Butts under oath is a mistake on the grit's part. It brings untruthful coverup into play. The old 'If you did nothing wrong, there's no need to be worried' goes both ways. If not taken or a refusal to take it, it looks like they're spinning it and hiding things.

Even under oath, I don't think Butts is capable of telling the truth. Like many, I'll just assume everything he is doing is to cover his buddy's ***. Whether that's legal or, possibly, illegal activity. I don't think he's aware of the difference.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 06, 2019, 14:01:12
Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Chief Bill Wilson

Chief Judy Wilson, chief of the Neskonlith Indian Band in B.C, the secretary-treasury of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs (UBCIC)

I know that Bill Wilson is Ms Jody Wilson-Raybould's father.

Does anyone know if there is any relationship to Chief Judy Wilson?

They seem to be from different tribes; apparently Canada decided to give them all 'good Christian names' at some point in the 1800s so that's why there are a lot of unrelated people with the same name.  Here's a link talking about the Indian Naming Act. https://www.ictinc.ca/indian-act-naming-policies (https://www.ictinc.ca/indian-act-naming-policies)

As an aside, that's yet another pretty messed up part of colonization. Reading the reconciliation report really undercut a lot of what I thought about Canada as a country, so look at things with a lot more grey now.  Embarrassed as a Canadian that there are so many reservations without potable water, while the GoC pisses away billions on things that don't matter.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 06, 2019, 14:08:41
She made notes. He didn't. Guess who I'm more inclined to believe?

It will come down to who sounds more credible on the evening newscasts.  Wernick's testimony can be expected to shore up Butts while undermining JWR.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 06, 2019, 14:10:20
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-drop-the-poses-trudeau-you-owe-this-country-a-real-explanation

Rex Murphy: Drop the poses Trudeau. You owe this country a real explanation

Don’t talk fatuously of the 'bigger picture.' There is no bigger picture than whether you are morally entitled to govern

Rex Murphy   

March 5, 2019 6:08 PM EST

Fortuna, the wayward goddess, has abandoned her dalliance with Justin Trudeau. What he wins from here on, if he wins at all, will be on his own work, not her flippant favour.

The socks and the selfies are inert now, those props are dated, all their quaint magic gone. Even the rolled-up sleeves and the loosely knotted tie (his let’s-all-get-to-work look) come over now as a parody of the posing politician, the silk-vest patrician at the steel plant vainly affecting to identify with the sweating hard hats on the shop floor.

None of it is working anymore. The familiar gestures are all too self-conscious, the slogans dated and flaccid, the whole play-acting schtick is dead and worse - boring. And the speeches! Monday night’s in Toronto (to launch the election-year global-warming roadshow during a -19C cold alert ) verged on the manic; parts of the opening in particular were something you might have heard in the ancient Sunday morning revivalists’ broadcasts back in the Dark Ages of early television, Jimmy Swaggart or Garner Ted Armstrong raging against the darkness. It was eerie.

The two-minute concessionary acknowledgment of Jane Philpott’s resignation was insultingly perfunctory, swaddled in all the usual pompousness of “diversity” and “listening to other views,” utterly out of touch with the gravity and import of her departure, and the moral indictment of his government in which she framed it.

Here’s where we are. After these two key resignations, on a principle as central as the rule of law, after accusations that he and his administration wished to bend or break that rule of law, Mr. Trudeau has either to drop out altogether, or, start acting like the full man, and directly, without intermediaries, face the challenge that confronts his government.

Drop the poses. Choke off the slogans and pieties. Leave the jacket on. Sit down and speak to Canadians in detail on the moral and legal questions these two most serious ministers have put to him. Cut the theatricals. Don’t talk fatuously of the “bigger picture.” There is no bigger picture than whether you are morally entitled to govern.

Drop, too, the jobs cloak. There are too many unbuilt pipelines and an entire region that has been shedding jobs by the tens of thousands, while your government was writing Bill C-69, dancing at global-warming summits aimed at shutting down the oil industry, and writing new hymns to job-killing carbon taxes, for you now to pose as a job creator, and to shamelessly posit that saving SNC-Lavalin’s jobs was worth mauling the rule of law.

Ms. Philpott’s exercise of her choice is, in its way, even more explosive than Ms. Jody Wilson-Raybould’s. The latter was harassed over months; she was the focus and centre of the pressure campaign to desert her responsibilities as attorney general. The impact on her was direct. All that pressure, the special pleading and the veiled threats could understandably colour her judgment. Not to say, actually, that they did - but as a postulate, let us consider that.

But then we come to Ms. Philpott, arguably (pace Chrystia Freeland) the most adult, accomplished, unabrasive minister in Trudeau’s entire cabinet, welcomed in the early days as a lustrous ornament to his “new way of doing politics” and regarded since her arrival and service in many portfolios as singularly efficient and superbly competent.

This is the woman who resigned yesterday. Not some whining, marginal backbencher, with far less talent than ego, nursing a grudge over getting passed by.

Ms. Philpott, in one manner of speaking, was outside the contest, but being in cabinet, having been there when Ms. Wilson-Raybould presented to it, and to caucus - we may presume she’s heard the full tale. And having heard it, both sides, she concludes she has to resign; that the price (too high) for staying in this cabinet after what has been done to Jody Wilson-Raybould, is the sacrifice of her personal integrity and a scar on her conscience.

Philpott’s resignation, intrinsically linked to the case made by Wilson-Raybould, is a bolt of winter lightning to the central nervous system of the Trudeau government.

Does anyone in the Prime Minister’s Office now actually believe that hauling out the knackered horse of climate change, placing Catherine McKenna in its tendentious, preachy saddle to tag-team with Justin, is going to - in that woeful cliché - change the channel?

If they do, they are delusional. They haven’t just drunk the Kool-Aid, they’ve poured it in the hot tub first, had a full splash-bathe-and-back-rub, and drunk the leavings.

I have a thought. Seeing what remains of their commitments to changing the voting system, abandoning omnibus bills, being open and transparent, remaining dedicated to the rule of law, unlocking Alberta’s oil - seeing where the Trudeau government is on all of these abandoned/mismanaged files - why should anyone think that even on its golden child of an issue, climate change, it is really any more serious or committed than on any of the others? Climate change might just be the last big pose.

A word on Gerry Butts’ longed-for appearance Wednesday morning: Why is Gerry Butts appearing? He doesn’t even work there anymore. Why all this drama for an ex-employee when the CEO is still on the premises - and he’s the one, the only one, who has all the answers.

Gerry is of course welcome to come by later. Enough for now though with the surrogates and deputies. Two serious women of unsullied integrity, who committed their fortunes to joining your government, have told the public that morally they could stay no longer.

Mr. Trudeau owes them the courtesy of an answer, and the country of which he is the prime minister, a candid and complete accounting.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/the-other-guys-suck-is-not-a-campaign-platform/

The SNC-Lavalin affair has reduced the Liberals to a risky strategem: betting their opponents are a bigger turn-off than they are

by Jason Markusoff  Mar 5, 2019

Monday afternoon’s cabinet resignation by Jane Philpott plunged Justin Trudeau deeper into the most rapidly festering crisis of his government’s term. On Monday evening, Trudeau sought refuge by time-travelling back to the fall of 2015, when he was pluckily racing from third place to first, and when SNC-Lavalin was still a bribery-marred infrastructure giant that at least didn’t help create existential problems for his political career.

Here was slightly retro Trudeau, now Prime Minister but still with red tie loosened under an open collar button, white sleeves rolled up just so. He offered platitudes about hard work in a voice that was home-stretch hoarse. He even ended his rally speech the same was as in days of yore: “Let’s go knock doors because we know better is always possible!”

Sure, Trudeau touched the fresh departure of a second cabinet minister, and even laid hints at a strategic change of tone in his scattershot defence of this messy affair. But he quickly dispensed with those lines in favour of a nascent stump speech. “At the same time, my friends, we need to keep in mind the bigger picture behind this fantastic movement we have built, and continue to build.” At this event, his focus was mainly on the Liberal climate change plan as a point of sharp contrast with Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer, whose approach to climate change remains unknown. “The first thing he’d do as Prime Minister is make pollution free again,” Trudeau said, cuing up the partisans’ boo-hiss-shame.

<snip>

They may try to wave off this political quagmire and transport back to a time when Trudeau lacked such grim ethical baggage. They may prefer a straight head-to-head with Scheer on policy (and dismiss Jagmeet Singh’s NDP entirely, in part to depict 2019’s election as a binary choice).The Liberals did, after all, survive the first election after the sponsorship scandal with a minority (2004) and were leading in the polls through much of the second one (2006) before losing to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. But that was only after Paul Martin had replaced Jean Chretien, the Prime Minister who presided over that ugly bout of grift-and-graft. In today’s scandal, barring future developments, the person at the top of the Liberal ticket has been personally fingered as responsible.

Trudeau is clearly aiming to make this election heavily about the planet’s future and climate change. But on its face, this strategem also seems fraught. First, because the Conservatives seem content to make this fall’s vote a referendum on the carbon tax. Second, because voters who will think first and foremost about the climate might also gulp anxiously about a political party that bought an oil pipeline project. Third, because the most slogan-like line from last night’s speech - “It’s 2019, and if you don’t have a plan for climate change, then you don’t have a plan for the economy and you certainly don’t have a plan for Canada’s future” - may last only until Scheer actually brings forth some sort of plan. And then, Trudeau might be reduced to debating details, not putting his own imperfect plan up against a void.

Trudeau’s team also seems to want to shrug off ethical choices on their leader’s part yet hammer Scheer on his. His speech at last month’s multi-purpose rally of western truckers who want pipelines and, toxically, don’t want certain immigrants seems to now be at the centre of that argument. “There are a number of people who are incredibly worried that we are going to lose the progress that we have made and we are going to see a government that is led by an individual who has coddled Yellow Vesters,” Toronto MP Nathaniel Erskine-Smith told CBC on Tuesday.

Certainly, problematic links to xenophobes and problematic trampling over prosecutorial independence are separate, hard-to-compare concerns. But these are, it seems, the alternatives voters will have to reckon with.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/justin-trudeaus-rise-to-power-seemed-charmed-now-he-faces-a-fight-for-his-political-life/2019/03/05/19db9ae0-3f60-11e9-85ad-779ef05fd9d8_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.f078abaf008d

Justin Trudeau’s rise to power seemed charmed. Now he faces a fight for his political life.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rose to power as a press-whispering, selfie-snapping progressive icon who promised transparency and went viral for promoting women.

But after four years in the spotlight, Trudeau’s government faces accusations of shady brokering and backroom bullying, of sexism and hypocrisy. Though Trudeau has tried to defend his government’s actions, he seems, suddenly, at a loss for words - at least the right ones.

Former members of his cabinet are speaking out. The press is having a field day. Maclean’s, a national magazine, ran a cover with picture of a grinning Trudeau and the words, “The Imposter,” in all caps. Foreign Policy asked whether Canada’s “golden boy” has lost his shine.

The scope of the scandal is such that many Canadians are wondering if he will hold on to his majority government in the upcoming election.

Whatever happens, Trudeau’s rock star status seems like a thing of the past.

“The problem is that this particular scandal goes to his carefully crafted image,” said Christopher Sands, director of the Center for Canadian Studies at Johns Hopkins University in Washington.

<snip>

Nik Nanos, a Canadian pollster, said it was unusual to see Trudeau’s usually savvy team struggle to reshape the narrative. “They have been on the defensive almost daily,” he said. “We have only really heard one side of the story, plus little snippets from the prime minister.”

That may change. On Wednesday, Butts will deliver testimony, giving the government a chance to lay out what happened on its end. 

His challenge, analysts said, will be to defend Trudeau’s handling of the case without appearing to undermine two highly respected women.

If he takes a combative rather than a conciliatory approach, Butts risks alienating the voters who helped Trudeau win office.

Sands said Trudeau’s treatment of Wilson-Raybould, particularly the demotion, made him look like an “angry male boss.”

To survive, he will need to set a new tone, he said. “I think he grovels his way out of it, maybe.”

http://poll.forumresearch.com/post/2930/fed-horserace-march-2019/

Conservatives Leading Over Liberal March 4, 2019 @ 4:54 PM

If an election were held today, Conservatives would secure majority

Toronto, March 5th - In a random sampling of public opinion taken by The Forum Poll™ among 1301 Canadian voters, with those decided and leaning, 4 in 10 (42%) say they would support the Conservatives, with a third (33%) saying they would support the Liberals.

1 in 10 (12%) say they would support the NDP, with a few (5%) supporting the Green Party, BQ (3%), or the People’s Party of Canada (4%), or another party (1%).

Respondents most likely to support the Conservatives include those who live in the Prairies (Alberta 69%), males (53%), between the ages of 35-44 (47%), and the most wealthy (49%).

Respondents most likely to say they support the Liberals include those who live in the Atlantic region (55%), those between the ages of 45 to 54 (36%), 55 to 64 (36%), and 65 and over (37%), females (41%), those earning $20k-$40k (38%) or $40k-$60k (41%), and those with post-graduate degrees (43%).

If an election were held today, these results suggest the Conservatives would win a majority government of 185 seats. The Liberals would serve as the official opposition with 129 seats. The NDP would secure 18, the BQ 5, and the Greens 1.

<snip>

When asked if Canada is doing better or worse than it was 4 years ago, over half stated it was worse (BTM2: 59%), with a third (35%) saying it’s much worse. 4-in-10 respondents (TOP2: 41%) say it is better, with about 1 in 10 (13%) saying it’s much better.

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 06, 2019, 14:20:32
Not putting Butts under oath is a mistake on the grit's part. It brings untruthful coverup into play. The old 'If you did nothing wrong, there's no need to be worried' goes both ways. If not taken or a refusal to take it, it looks like they're spinning it and hiding things.
That can be a two-edged sword, too, though.  Is anybody believing JWR any less because nobody asked her to swear in and she didn't offer to?  Good for the goose ...  Besides, the rules say he can be dinged with Contempt of Parliament if he's found to be lying -- I'm suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure that'll happen, right?  :rofl:

Meanwhile, for more tea-leaf reading, here's a text of Butts' opening statement (https://outline.com/dZJEs2).
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 06, 2019, 14:45:27

Meanwhile, for more tea-leaf reading, here's a text of Butts' opening statement (http://bit.ly/2H162P3).

Too pat. If you believe Butts, I have swamp land to get rid of. :rofl:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 06, 2019, 14:49:08
Too pat.
... and you're being kind :)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Tcm621 on March 06, 2019, 15:03:35
One thing jumped out at me while reading a new story on Butts' testimony. According to the National Post, Butts remarked, " ask you whether or not that is in keeping with my character to do such a thing".

Recently, I was listening to Dr. Phil on Joe Rogan's podcast. For those who don't know, before Dr. Phil became a TV celebrity he worked in litigation as a consultant, often on deception detection. This is actually how he met Oprah. He mentioned that a common theme of people who are lying is to appeal to their character, "You know me, does that sound like me?". This isn't definitive by any stretch of the imagination but it is more food for thought.

Personally, the fact he was a big part of the McGuinty government as his principal secretary doesn't speak well of his character.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 06, 2019, 15:38:58
Listening to Wernick speak, I'm starting to think that the role of the AG is not the only role that needs critical review for independence.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 06, 2019, 15:44:31
Butts is the architect of Ontario's Green Energy Plan. He hailed himself far and wide as the single, most important guy that made it happen, all by himself.

Until it started coming apart, then he blamed everyone else and stopped taking credit.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 06, 2019, 15:48:18
He's definitely the guy most responsible for ruining the rural landscape of Ontario by saturating farmland with grotesque orchards of windmills.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 06, 2019, 16:14:11
He's definitely the guy most responsible for ruining the rural landscape of Ontario by saturating farmland with grotesque orchards of windmills.

And they are grotesque....driving up Highway 10 to Shelburne is a visual nightmare.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2019, 16:22:18
Wernick -

Quote
...Like the former Minister, I have sought legal advice about what I can and cannot say today. I have been advised not to opine on the Minister’s reasoning or state of mind because some of the issues are or will be before the Courts.

Is anybody aware of any information in the public domain to suggest that this matter is or will be before the Courts?  Do I hear an echo of the PM's pronouncements prior to the VAdm Norman case?

Quote
Finally, the Committee may wish to hold hearings on the Attorney General of Canada’s Directive on Civil Litigation Involving Indigenous Peoples, issued by the former Attorney General on January 11, 2019. The Directive to all Government of Canada litigators could mark a profound change in Canada’s legal landscape. However, it could be repealed or gutted at the stroke of a pen and turn to ashes. All political parties now need to be clear with Canadians on the future of this Directive.

I don't sense any overt threat there, nor any personal animus, "Jus' business!"
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2019, 16:25:34
I am enjoying the evolution of the word "truth".

There is "Truth" and there is "perception and opinion".  Who and what are you going to believe?

Experts or the court of public opinion.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Czech_pivo on March 06, 2019, 16:30:56
And they are grotesque....driving up Highway 10 to Shelburne is a visual nightmare.

Try driving west of Chatham into Windsor.....its hard enough going back to Windsor, the dozens of windmills as far as the eye can see along the 401 doesn't make it any easier.....
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 06, 2019, 16:33:57
Is anybody aware of any information in the public domain to suggest that this matter is or will be before the Courts?
Well, SNC's lawyered up, JWR's lawyered up, and it sounds like a final decision hasn't been made re:  SNC's prosecution, so maybe he meant "could be in the courts".  Or his legal beagles are being cautious in their advice to him.  Or who knows what civil litigation lurks hinted at in the background?
:pop:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2019, 16:46:08
Well, SNC's lawyered up, JWR's lawyered up, and it sounds like a final decision hasn't been made re:  SNC's prosecution, so maybe he meant "could be in the courts".  Or his legal beagles are being cautious in their advice to him.  Or who knows what civil litigation lurks hinted at in the background?
:pop:

Quote
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows.
  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2019, 17:01:25
Joking aside, I wonder if the Good Clerk is getting his cases confused....


Quote
Vice-Admiral Mark Norman's lawyer is threatening to call Gerald Butts and Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick to testify in open court if they don't produce a series of documents that she says are essential to defend her client.

Lawyer Marie Henein issued the ultimatum during a brief pre-trial hearing on Wednesday even as Butts, who recently resigned as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's top aide, was testifying before a House of Commons committee on the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Henein noted that she has been fighting since October for records from the Prime Minister's Office and the Privy Council Office, including with subpoenas last month for Trudeau's, Butts's and Wernick's emails, BlackBerry messages and other communications.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/vice-admiral-mark-norman-s-lawyer-threatens-to-call-butts-wernick-to-stand-1.4324614

Curious how hard it has been for the Mr. Butts to recover information on the Norman case vs how quickly he has been able to recover information on the Lavalin case.

Quote
Mercedes Stephenson

Verified account
 
@MercedesGlobal
 5h5 hours ago
More
Raitt: asks how Butts was able to review his texts if he doesn't have his govt phone any more.
Butts: his legal counsel obtained the texts

#cdnpoli #SNCLavalin #JUST

Quote
Mercedes Stephenson

Verified account
 
@MercedesGlobal
Following Following @MercedesGlobal
More
Raitt: I'm asking how if you gave up your phone when you left the PMO that you still had access to the phone to receive the texts. If you didn't have access who picked the texts for you to receive and look at? #cdnpoli #SNCLavalin #JUST

Quote
Mercedes Stephenson

Verified account
 
@MercedesGlobal
Following Following @MercedesGlobal
More
Raitt: asks how Butts was able to review his texts if he doesn't have his govt phone any more.
Butts: his legal counsel obtained the texts

#cdnpoli #SNCLavalin #JUST

Apparently Butts's legal counsel is the Liberal Party counsel.

 
Quote
Mercedes Stephenson Retweeted

David Akin  🇨🇦

Verified account
 
@davidakin
 4h4 hours ago
More
In the #JUST committee room, Butts just leaned back and a quick word with #LPC lawyer Michael Fenrick. So I think one could assume that Fenrick is also counsel for Butts in this matter. #cdnpoli


Quote
Mercedes Stephenson Retweeted

David Akin  🇨🇦

Verified account
 
@davidakin
 4h4 hours ago
More
After consulting with the #LPC counsel sitting behind him at #JUST, Butts tells @lraitt that all of the personal texts he is in possession of that he made on his govt smartphone have been read into the record.


Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 06, 2019, 17:04:05
Joking aside, I wonder if the Good Clerk is getting his cases confused....
You only JUST beat me to sharing the TorSun version of this one  :rofl:
Apparently Butts's legal counsel is the Liberal Party counsel.
Political position = political cover
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: dapaterson on March 06, 2019, 17:17:01
I am, at heart, a seven year old.  Thus every time I read the name of the individual who resigned, my mind always goes to the same place.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/Beavis_and_Butt-head_titlecard.png/250px-Beavis_and_Butt-head_titlecard.png)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: dapaterson on March 06, 2019, 17:25:33
Jen Gerson has a wonderful opinion piece in the NY Times

Quote
There is a particularly quaint element to Canada — our smallness, our politeness, our insularity — that makes many people, including many Canadians, assume the best about our country and ourselves. As if these qualities make us inherently purer than other, more populous countries.

It’s true that Canadians are a trusting, generous lot who generally believe in the greater good, institutions and the rule of law. Consequently, the country is prone to imagining itself more bound by a mythology of its own goodness than it actually is. But there’s a darker side to Canada’s smallness. Our tiny network of political, business and intellectual elite is insular and concentrated.

The scandal now enveloping Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — a bilingual, feminist, pro-multicultural liberal who embodies much of what we like to celebrate in our national character — should put an end to this.

...

The rule of law is a very grand Canadian virtue until, it seems, it proves to be a barrier to Liberal electoral prospects in Quebec. It is a small country, after all.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/06/opinion/canada-scandal-justin-trudeau.html
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2019, 17:35:14
Other curiousities from today

Quote
Vassy Kapelos

Verified account
 
@VassyKapelos
Following Following @VassyKapelos
More
Raitt is questioning why Wernick took Kevin Lynch's call (now chairman of SNC board, former clerk of the Privy Council) #cdnpoli

12:29 PM - 6 Mar 2019

Quote
Vassy Kapelos Retweeted

Steven Chase

Verified account
 
@stevenchase
 4h4 hours ago
More
Replying to @janycemcgregor @VassyKapelos
Here is the October 9 letter. DPP staffer Richard Roy reminds SNC-Lavalin that ”her decision” — meaning Kathleen Roussel’s — was communicated September 4 and all the DPP is doing in the face of a volley of SNC communications is saying they continue to be of this view.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D0_fw_wXcAEXO6f.jpg:large)

Apparently JWR's testimony is that she communicated her decision on the SNC matter, closing the file in her mind, on Sept 17 in conversation with the Prime Minister.

Judging from Butts's testimony the PM failed to communicate the decision to his Clerk or the PMO

Quote
Vassy Kapelos

Verified account
 
@VassyKapelos
 5h5 hours ago
More
I'm (Edit - Vassy Kapelos) re-looking at JWR's opening statement to find out if/when she communicated her (Edit - JWR) decision. She (Edit - JWR) says on Sept 17 she met with PM "I told him that I had done my due diligence, and made up my mind on SNC and that I was not going to interfere with the decision of the DPP"

In my view Drouin's testimony marches with JWR's


Vassy Kapelos Twitter Feed Summary


Drouin says she talked to JWR by phone on Sept 5, SNC discussed on the margins. Agreed dept would provide advice on role of AG in this matter. #cdnpoli

Drouin says she provided this advice. Says it would be very important for the AG to be comfortable with the DPP's decision. AG entitled to receive as much info as necessary from the DPP.

Drouin says she spoke with DM of Finance, who had questions about role of AG. Drouin says she provided draft opinion to AG's office Sept 8th.

Drouin says first face to face meeting with JWR was Sept 17, later she says on Sept 18 they debrief JWR convo with PM. JWR tells Drouin she's uncomfortable with content of conversation.

Drouin: after Sept 19, I didn't have any further involvement on file with JWR and staff. 2 exceptions: Oct 19: judicial review of DPP decision filed, near end of Oct Privy Council office asked for dept advice on impact of SNC if DPA not pursued - advice not provided bc minister


[/quote]



Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2019, 18:14:44
So

Sept 4 - DPP Roussel informs retired SCC Justice Iacobucci, acting for SNC-Lavalin of her decision on a Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Sept 5 - AG/Justice Minister JWR mentions the SNC-Lavalin issue to her DM of Justice, Drouin in a telephone call about other matters.  JWR requests advice on her role as AG in this matter and DM agrees to have that advice supplied.  DM of Finance Paul Rochon (?) "who had questions about role of AG".

Sept 8 - DM Justice Drouin provides draft opinion on AG's SNC role to AG JWR

Sept 17 - (Busy Day)
            - DM Drouin has first face to face with AG JWR on SNC
            - AG JWR informs PM Trudeau of her decision to stand behind her DPP Roussel.
            - SNC sends letter to office of DPP Roussel

Sept 18 - AG JWR and DM Drouin meet and discuss the Sept 17 meeting between AG JWR and PM Trudeau (Edit - Clerk of PCO Wernick in attendance).  JWR informs Drouin she was uncomfortable with the conversation with the PM.
            - SNC emails the office of DPP Roussel

Sept 19 - (My sense is that as of this date AG JWR and her department considered the matter closed)  Edit - AG JWR informs her DM Drouin that she had just had a discussion with Wernick, the matter was closed and not to discuss the matter with the DPP.

Sept 27 - Iacobucci, on behalf of SNC, submits additional documentation to the office of DPP Roussel

Oct 1 - Quebec Provincial Election

Oct 9 - Office of the DPP rejects SNC requests for face-to-face between the DPP and the CEO of SNC and informs SNC that the prosecution will proceed to preliminary inquiry on Oct 29

Oct 19 - Judicial Review of DPP decision filed

Oct 29 - SNC preliminary enquiry scheduled.

"near end of Oct" - "Privy Council office (Wernick)  asked for dept advice on impact of SNC if DPA not pursued"
                         - "advice not provided bc (because of) minister (AG JWR - aka Minister of Justice"





 



Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 06, 2019, 18:17:45
Not putting Butts under oath

I wouldn't expect anything less from PM Trudeau and the PMO  :rofl:

It's such a crap show. You'd have to be willfully ignorant or daft not to see exactly whats going on. I bet the Liberals are being just as unethical with the Norman case.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 06, 2019, 18:21:54
Listening to Wernick speak, I'm starting to think that the role of the AG is not the only role that needs critical review for independence.

Somewhere in the myriad posted articles, there is mention of this problem.

I believe that he is covering off three jobs, at least two of which, and possibly all three, are in conflict and really need to be separated.

Clerk of the Privy Council is one, Public Service boss is another, can't remember the third.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 06, 2019, 18:48:16
Somewhere in the myriad posted articles, there is mention of this problem.

I believe that he is covering off three jobs, at least two of which, and possibly all three, are in conflict and really need to be separated.

Clerk of the Privy Council is one, Public Service boss is another, can't remember the third.

Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister?

A further indication of the wind turning:  Trudeau has lost Neil MacDonald

Quote
...He and his ministers are capable of answering nearly any question with some vow of support for "the middle class and those who are working so hard to join it," an annoyingly meaningless phrase that's become a banner for his government.

In any case, this verbal porridge, delivered with a serene smile, has carried him along. Until now.

With his government sinking into a self-inflicted crisis, it's beginning to appear that Justin Trudeau simply doesn't have the intellectual acuity to cope....

And meanwhile -  in the curiousities file:

Michael Wernick on wearing a wire....

Quote
In his second appearance before the committee, Mr Wernick denied the accusation: "I made no threats to the attorney general, period."

But when pressed on whether he said things to her like "(Mr Trudeau) will find a way to get it done one way or another", Mr Wernick said he could not recall.

"I wasn't wearing a wire," he said by way of explanation.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-47409909

The response was considered laughably disrespectful by the Committee
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Baden Guy on March 06, 2019, 18:59:07
I wouldn't expect anything less from PM Trudeau and the PMO  :rofl:

It's such a crap show. You'd have to be willfully ignorant or daft not to see exactly whats going on. I bet the Liberals are being just as unethical with the Norman case.

"Before beginning to speak, the Liberal majority on the committee voted down a Conservative motion for Butts to be sworn in to testify under oath.

Conservative MP Michael Cooper tried in vain to have Butts sworn in, but he was told the committee had spoken.

“I will tell the truth,” Butts told the committee as he started his opening statement."

https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/the-latest-butts-wernick-testify-at-justice-committee-on-snc-lavalin-affair

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 06, 2019, 19:47:13
I like the shovel and pick lapel pin for Butts, however a hammer and sickle might be more appropriate.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Halifax Tar on March 06, 2019, 19:54:37
I like the shovel and pick lapel pin for Butts, however a hammer and sickle might be more appropriate.

I noticed that too, is there significance to that ?  I thought about a homage to his coal mining roots in CB maybe ?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 06, 2019, 20:00:34
Turns out it’s worthy of national news: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/put-a-pin-in-it-did-you-notice-what-butts-wernick-wore-on-their-lapels-at-the-snc-lavalin-hearing
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Navy_Pete on March 06, 2019, 20:13:27
Wow, kind of feel this is almost an inept enough handling of the situation to be a satire.

Butts was Edited to remove adjectives contrary to the posting in the political thread guidelines (and exactly the kind of  bureaucrabro policy wonk you expect to find in the PMO, ADM, or DM offices). Think he would have been better not volunteering to testify as he was not credible.  Wernick came off as a Edited to remove adjectives contrary to the posting in the political thread guidelines, but glad MP Raitt is on the committee.

This is the most unconvincing whitewashing I've seen outside of a Britcom, brutal.  They are a cunning plan away from being a Blackadder plot.

Still not Brexit parliament dysfunctional, but this story is all over the UK press too.  Think there was an article posted already, but there is a pretty funny opinion piece in the Guardian about watching Trudeau get hit by this is like watching a unicorn get run over by a car.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 06, 2019, 20:16:58
Turns out it’s worthy of national news: https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/put-a-pin-in-it-did-you-notice-what-butts-wernick-wore-on-their-lapels-at-the-snc-lavalin-hearing

Lame and greasy theatrics. All that's missing was a photo of the PMs socks.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 06, 2019, 20:42:49
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-imagine-trudeaus-befuddlement-as-his-brightest-recruits-threaten-his-demise

Chris Selley: Imagine Trudeau's befuddlement as his brightest recruits threaten his demise

These clearly aren’t the politicians we’re used to. Perhaps having mistaken a slogan for a credo, they’re actually doing politics differently

Chris Selley   

March 5, 2019 1:27 AM EST

<snip>

We’ve become inured to it: To enter politics behind the scenes is to check your principles, if any, at reception. To enter it as a member of a legislature is all but to consent to lobotomy. Never mind your degrees and your doorstop of a CV: A warren of far-too-intense 23-year-old weirdos has written talking points for you and, damn it, you’re going to read them.

This is what makes the resignations from cabinet of successful lawyer Jody Wilson-Raybould and, on Monday, successful family doctor Jane Philpott so stunning. One can understand the PMO’s frustration as it explained the thousands of jobs implicated in a potential conviction for SNC-Lavalin, only to be rebutted with something as arcane as “the rule of law.” But at least they could badmouth the not-universally-popular Wilson-Raybould to friendly reporters. One can scarcely imagine the PMO’s befuddlement when the all-but-universally-respected Philpott decided she couldn’t be associated with it any longer. Does this woman not know what’s at stake?

Indeed, the “it’s them or Andrew Scheer” desperation among Liberal partisans reached a new crescendo on Monday. Maybe Wilson-Raybould and Philpott realize that’s not actually the dividing line between civilization and Thunderdome that the Liberals would have us believe. Or maybe they realize that sacrificing one’s principles is not excused when negative consequences are indicated. Some would argue that’s the only time when sticking to them really matters.

Either way, these clearly aren’t the politicians we’re used to. Perhaps having mistaken a slogan for a credo, they’re actually doing politics differently. “When you add women, please do not expect the status quo,” Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes, who’s not running in 2019, tweeted on Monday after Philpott’s resignation. “Expect us to make correct decisions, stand for what is right and exit when values are compromised.”

That is just savagely on point. If nothing else, Trudeau can hang his hat on some very talented recruits. It’s entirely fitting they are now making life miserable for this simpering charlatan of a prime minister.

Edit to remove inappropriate emphasis of part of the article text.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 06, 2019, 21:06:47
Bourque News Watch has been up for more years than I can remember. I usually check it first thing in the morning and again in the evening.

http://www.bourque.com/nates.html

Natterings @ Nate's

Wednesday, March 6

Trudeau mulls resignation
A well-known Trudeau insider pops into Nate's to grab some takeout. With Butts this morning, then Wernick this aft, it's been a long, long, long day.

While he's waiting for his smoked meat platter with extra fat, bucket of slaw, quiver of pickle spears, and meddley of verenekas & latkes, a pal who's been there in the trenches with the team walks up. Let's call him Mike, it doesn't matter. The other guy, the insider, shall remain nameless. It is best that way.

Mike asks the obvious, "so, how's it going ?"

Nameless furrows his brow. He really doesn't want to get into it. But he knows he can't brush Mike off with a platitude. So he scans the room for danger. Sensing none, he relaxes a bit, exhales, and answers.

"Not good", says Nameless.

"That bad, eh", offers Mike.

"Worse", says Nameless.

Mike gets a bit closer, lowers his voice.

"How bad ?", he asks.

"Resignation is not out of the question", Nameless admits.

Mike is stunned. It's the last thing he expected to hear. But he holds out hope.

"Who's ?", he asks, "Telford ? Wernick ? The Bimbo Boys ?"

Nameless shrugs, waves an arm limply, then shakes his head.

"No, the boss", he admits.

Mike noisily lets out all the air in his lungs.He skips a beat, deflated.

"Wow". That's all he can offer up, stunned.

The takeout arrives at the counter, Nameless pays for it, waves at someone from Bluesky walking by, opens up his bag of food, pulls out the pickles, grabs one for himself, and offers one to Mike, who takes one to munch along with his pal. They both munch and crunch for a moment, and then Mike asks a question.

"So, is it a done deal ?"

"Can't say, I can't because I can't. And because there are a couple other options", says Nameless.

"Like what, for instance ?"

Nameless sucks on his pickle for a couple seconds.

"Well, for instance, like scorched earth."

"Scorched earth ?", Mike asks, "you mean more heads rolling ?"

"Maybe. Telford, Wernick, the Bimbo Boys. Maybe. A clean slate .. followed by a public repudiation of SNC-Lavalin by the PM and an apology to the nation for having let the nation down."

Mike is stunned to the point that he grabs for another pickle wedge without even being offered.

"Will that work .. or will that only fuel the scandal ?" It's a valid question and a valid concern. Mike knows that people come and go in politics and sometimes you need to dump those closest to you before the masses have your own head. It's the old adage that the people who got you to the PMO are not necessarily the people who keep you in the PMO.

Nameless looks unconvinced.

"That's the problem", he admits, "there is no insight into what impact that will have".

"So then what ?", asks Mike.

Nameless furrows his brow.

"Justin may take the blame and resign, it's the honourable out."

Mike is stunned, shocked, disillusioned.

"That's insane !"

Nameless shakes his head slowly. He fishes into his bag of food, pulls out the latkes, offers one to Mike, who takes one.

"We feel we are losing the public's trust", admits Nameless, as he takes a big bit out of his latke.

The two ponder the ramifications for a moment while they eat.

"If not Justin, then who will lead us into the election ?", Mike asks.

"We'd need an interim leader, a Herb Gray", says Nameless

Mike gives that some thought, then offers up some names.

"Garneau ? Goodale ? McGuinty ? Freeland ? Morneau ? Mckenna ?" Mike is right on some, but grasping at straws with others.

Nameless bobs his head left and right.

"Morneau is a non-starter, he's tainted by that secret French villa nonsense. And we think Freeland & McKenna would want to run for the leadership. Goodale & McGuinty would be great placeholders, but the inside line would go to Garneau. We'd want you on board to help make that happen, Mike. We wouldn't be able to make it happen without you"

Mike is flattered, but surprised at the foresight. He loves Garneau the way he loved Dryden back in the day. He's interested.

"I'm interested", he admits.

Nameless nods, then leans in. Mike can smell the garlic on his breath

"We don't know which way things will go. We may get Calgary Grit to do a focus group. There's also the idea we'll simply dig in, hunker down, fight back, and drag this scandal out as long as we can, keeping the status quo until the election in the fall. Rag the puck, so to speak."

Mike nods, does the zipper signal across his lips. Mum's the word.

"Wow", concludes Mike.

"I know", Nameless nods. It is what it is. At this point, there's not much else that can be added.

The two finish their latkes, then head for the exit.

Developing.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 06, 2019, 21:13:41
Deputy Minister to the Prime Minister?
:nod:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Furniture on March 06, 2019, 21:19:05
It appears Mrs Telford has deployed one of her Op-ed writers.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/bob-hepburn-why-jody-wilson-raybould-is-no-hero/ar-BBUsKok?ocid=spartanntp (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/bob-hepburn-why-jody-wilson-raybould-is-no-hero/ar-BBUsKok?ocid=spartanntp)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on March 06, 2019, 21:25:52
It appears Mrs Telford has deployed one of her Op-ed writers.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/bob-hepburn-why-jody-wilson-raybould-is-no-hero/ar-BBUsKok?ocid=spartanntp (https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/bob-hepburn-why-jody-wilson-raybould-is-no-hero/ar-BBUsKok?ocid=spartanntp)

I definitely agree. Nepburn has written one lame article here.

 :trainwreck:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chief Engineer on March 06, 2019, 22:18:29
Press conference tomorrow by the PM, perhaps he'll do the honorable thing...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-to-discuss-snc-lavalin-affair-in-thursday-morning-press-conference/ar-BBUt1Cn?li=AAggNb9

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 07, 2019, 02:24:29
Quote
Had everybody on the team done what the prime minister asked of them, then we would not be having this conversation today.”
  Gerry Butts per Marni Soupcoff


https://nationalpost.com/opinion/marni-soupcoff-butts-still-doesnt-understand-why-canadians-are-so-appalled?video_autoplay=true


Quote
(Butts) was so mellow about the whole thing that it came as a bit of a shock when, towards the end of the question and answer period, he noted with what seemed like frustration and a hint of anger: “Had everybody on the team done what the prime minister asked of them, then we would not be having this conversation today.”

   
Well, indeed.

So, no hard feelings, no pointing fingers or anything, but if that witch Wilson-Raybould had just shut up, sat down, and done as she was told by the people who matter, we wouldn’t be in this stinking mess to begin with.

I have absolutely no doubt that Butts believes this to be true and absolutely no doubt that it is true. The disturbing part is that he doesn’t seem to realize that it’s exactly this attitude that has appalled and turned off Canadians since the SNC-Lavalin scandal was uncovered. It is exactly this attitude that has made voters question whether the Trudeau government was ever even serious about cleaning up politics and respecting and cultivating female leaders. Butts watched his words so carefully, but he was too arrogant to realize that he ought to have censored himself when it came to his view on what this is all about.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 07, 2019, 03:34:52
Press conference tomorrow by the PM, perhaps he'll do the honorable thing...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-to-discuss-snc-lavalin-affair-in-thursday-morning-press-conference/ar-BBUt1Cn?li=AAggNb9

What will be get?

The tears and sobbing pm (with a cleverly picked out lapel pin) saying sorry and he will stay on to make things right?

Or will he decide that the testimony put any thoughts of impropriety to bed and he's deciding Canada will move on ?

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 07, 2019, 07:37:37
Or will he decide that the testimony put any thoughts of impropriety to bed and he's deciding Canada will move on ?

Given Wernick's clear irritation with having to testify, yet again, to others who just don't "get it" that nothing wrong was done, and Butt's bringing much needed clarity to a misunderstood "public policy issue", I think we'll see the "working man's PM", again stress that everything was done appropriately to protect Québec jobs and Canada's economy.  And he'll bring up the specter of "Harper's Conservatives" at least once.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 07, 2019, 07:42:16
Press conference tomorrow by the PM, perhaps he'll do the honorable thing...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-to-discuss-snc-lavalin-affair-in-thursday-morning-press-conference/ar-BBUt1Cn?li=AAggNb9
... followed by a quick trip north (https://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2019/03/06/itinerary-thursday-march-7-2019) ...
Quote
Ottawa, Ontario

7:45 a.m. The Prime Minster will deliver remarks, and hold a media availability.

National Press Theatre
150 Wellington Street

Notes for media:

            Open coverage
            Journalists who are not members of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery will require accreditation from the gallery in advance. For more information, contact Pierre Cuguen at pierre.cuguen@parl.gc.ca.
            Out-of-town journalists can also dial in to listen to the news conference. Please note these will be set up as listen-only mode lines. International callers must dial the local phone number for proper access.
            Participant dial-in numbers:
            Local: 613-960-7518
            Toll-free: 1-866-805-7923
            Pass code: 3480911#

Iqaluit, Nunavut

1:30 p.m. The Prime Minister will deliver an official apology to Inuit for the federal government’s management of tuberculosis in the Arctic from the 1940s to the 1960s, and will make an important announcement.

Frobisher Inn
Astro Hill 

Notes for media:

            Open coverage
            Media are asked to arrive to the Baffin Room no later than 12:30 p.m.

3:45 p.m. The Prime Minister, Minister of Indigenous Services Seamus O’Regan, and Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Carolyn Bennett will hold a media availability.

Baffin Room
Frobisher Inn
Astro Hill

Notes for media:

            Open coverage
            Media are asked to arrive no later than 3:00 p.m.

4:45 p.m. The Prime Minister, Minister of Indigenous Services Seamus O’Regan, and Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations Carolyn Bennett will attend a community feast.

Inuksuk High School
1 Ring Road

Note for media:

            Members of the press are welcome to attend the community feast.
:pop:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 07, 2019, 09:30:16
Press conference tomorrow by the PM, perhaps he'll do the honorable thing...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/trudeau-to-discuss-snc-lavalin-affair-in-thursday-morning-press-conference/ar-BBUt1Cn?li=AAggNb9

maybe.  I would expect though that he would have informed his caucus first.  Without a caucus meeting before his press appearance I would not expect a resignation.  But who knows.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 07, 2019, 09:59:06
https://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/indigenous-services-cabinet-shuffle-wilson-raybould-1.5045932

Trudeau's offer of Indigenous Services to Wilson-Raybould like 'asking Nelson Mandela to administer apartheid'
Social Sharing

B.C. regional chief says suggested move shows Trudeau favours symbolism over substance

Jorge Barrera CBC News Posted: Mar 06, 2019 6:59 PM ET

The prime minister's attempt to move Jody Wilson-Raybould to the Indigenous Services portfolio was a 'deeply humiliating' proposal and shows a lack of understanding and disconnect from First Nations' world view, say Indigenous leaders and analysts.   

Gerald Butts, the prime minister's former principal secretary, testified before the House of Commons justice committee Wednesday that the former cabinet minister was moved to Veterans Affairs from Justice after refusing to take on the Indigenous Services portfolio, and that the shuffle had nothing to do with her refusal to intervene on the SNC-Lavalin criminal prosecution.

It was concern over maintaining the reconciliation momentum that led Trudeau to move Wilson-Raybould from Justice to Indigenous Services, said Butts.

Jane Philpott, who was an admired Indigenous Services minister, had to be moved to Treasury Board to replace the outgoing Scott Brison, and, in Trudeau's mind, Wilson-Raybould was the perfect fit to replace her, said Butts.

<snip>

Hayden King, executive director of the Yellowhead Institute at Ryerson University, said he sees a sub-narrative embedded in Butts' testimony, along with Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick's statements before the committee earlier this month.

"They are, I think, framing Wilson-Raybould's resistance [to SNC-Lavalin intervention] as being wrapped up in her Indigenous politics," said King.

"This is a part of narrative that they are trying to package.... I think they are trying to convey to Canadians something here about trouble-making Indigenous people."

https://globalnews.ca/news/5029335/analysis-trudeau-wilson-raybould-snc-lavalin-about-politics/

March 6, 2019 9:43 pm

ANALYSIS: Despite protests from top Trudeau aide, Wilson-Raybould was right - SNC-Lavalin is about politics, not jobs

By David Akin

<snip>

The government that likes to tell you it's all about 'evidence-based policy' has no evidence that "a minimum of 9,000 jobs" were hanging in the balance. They've just been spitballing that number.

"Did you seek independent evidence or any evidence that there was a threat to jobs?" Green Party MP Elizabeth May asked Butts Wednesday. "Based on the 2018 audited financial statements of SNC-Lavalin, they currently have $15 billion in back orders." She's right. "They have a very secure financial situation with gross revenues of $10 billion." She's right again.

"Is there any evidence that jobs were actually at stake by letting this go through the courts?" May asked Butts.

"I can't recall anything specific," Butts replied. He mumbled something about some briefings he got from the folks at the federal department of finance. These finance officials would be the same gang, one assumes, that once advised the Trudeau government it would be a good idea to raise taxes on small business owners like farmers, dentists, doctors, insurance brokers and so on because they were, after all, tax cheats. Once bitten, twice shy, I'd say, about any advice I got from the federal finance department.

In any event, Butts could not point to a single report, document, statistic, prognostication, or written record where someone said "a minimum of 9,000 jobs" was out the window if Wilson-Raybould did not do as encouraged.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/christie-blatchford-the-circus-comes-to-parliament-hill

Christie Blatchford: The circus comes to Parliament Hill

And there you have it. That's where the bar is. Easy to see who's above it, and who is not

Christie Blatchford   

March 6, 2019 8:10 PM EST

You know how, when the circus comes to town, or a big fair, it's always tricky deciding where to go first: The ferris wheel, or the games of chance? The haunted house, or the roller coaster? Cotton candy or the little doughnuts?

So it was with the justice committee Wednesday, where Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary Gerry Butts and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, in round two at the committee, duelled for the attention and regard of Canadians, from coast to coast to coast, as the PM is so fond of saying.

<snip>

Butts was shocked, he said.

Why, he'd never seen such a thing before. JWR said she had spent her life fighting the Indian Act and couldn't now be in charge of programs administered under it.

He gave his best advice to Trudeau, told him he couldn't allow a minister to dictate where she would or wouldn't go; that would lead to chaos. Thus, she was briefly moved to veterans affairs, from whence she resigned from cabinet.

<snip>

Anyway, he certainly accepts "that two people can experience the same event differently"; if ever you wondered where the PM's explanation of the Kokanee grope came from, you may now know.

<snip>

In reply to one of the committee's best questioners, Conservative Lisa Raitt, and after he'd referred to texts and messages he sent JWR or she him, Butts allowed that he "acquired the ability" through his lawyer to get access to his phone.

Compare that, if you will, to the accused former Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff, Mark Norman, whom this government is so avidly prosecuting. His lawyers have been asking for access to his emails and texts since October. Thus far, no access.

<snip>

When his toughest questioners dared interrupt him, Wernick pushed back. "Excuse me sir! Excuse me sir!" or appealed to the chair. At one point, he said, "I know many members (of the committee) said they believed every word" of JWR's testimony, and reminded them that "part of what she said was that nothing veered into criminal" conduct.

To which, the non-Liberal members of the committee cried, "That's the bar? It's not criminal?"

And there you have it. That's where the bar is. Easy to see who's above it, and who is not.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-it-was-wilson-rayboulds-decision-to-make-as-long-as-she-decided-it-their-way?video_autoplay=true

Andrew Coyne: It was Wilson-Raybould's decision to make, as long as she decided it their way

There's a way to sort this out: subpoena all communication on the subject between the players named. Sorry - the Liberal majority voted not to do so

More than once in the course of his testimony to the Commons justice committee Gerald Butts said that he was not there to call anyone names or to cast aspersions on the character of Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Which is why the prime minister's former principal secretary confined himself to depicting her as sloppy, closed-minded and unco-operative, while heavily implying the former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada was a serial fabulist who said nothing to anyone about attempts to interfere with her authority over criminal prosecutions until after she was shuffled out of her "dream job" in January. Otherwise he might have gotten really nasty.

And yet he offered little that contradicted what she had earlier told the committee - that she was pressured to overrule the decision of the director of public prosecutions to proceed with charges of fraud and corruption against SNC-Lavalin, rather than to offer it the remediation agreement it had sought.

To be sure, on the specific charge against him, that he had told her chief of staff in a meeting on Dec. 18 that "there's no solution that doesn't involve some interference," he had "a very different recollection." Variations on that theme were to be heard later from the clerk of the privy council, Michael Wernick, who had "no recollection" of a variety of statements attributed to him - that SNC-Lavalin would move its headquarters from Montreal if it did not get its way, or that something unfortunate might happen to her career if she kept crossing the prime minister.

<snip>

Just so, she was told: the decision was hers and hers alone to make. She was the "final decision-maker." Only the decision was also "never final." She could make it, that is, but she would have everyone from the prime minister on down coming back to her again and again - not because there was any fresh evidence, but just because they could - all the while implicitly questioning her judgment, in the sly form of that repeated suggestion that she seek an outside legal opinion.

This last is a distraction. The attorney general has available to her all the legal advice she requires. The only point of demanding she seek a second opinion was because they did not like the first. In any case, whether to seek outside advice is, again, the attorney general's decision to make, in the same way as it is her choice whether to seek the advice of her colleagues - as opposed to the unsolicited advice that Butts, Wernick and others were pressing upon her.

Ah, but if she felt this was interference, Butts wondered aloud, why didn't she tell anyone? If she had made up her mind, why didn't she say anything?

According to her testimony, she did: to the prime minister, at their Sept. 17 meeting ("I told him that I had done my due diligence and made up my mind on SNC"); to the clerk, at the same meeting; to the finance minister on Sept. 19 ("I told him that engagements from his office to mine on SNC had to stop - that they were inappropriate"); to Matthieu Bouchard and Elder Marques, officials in the PMO, on Nov. 22 ("I said NO. My mind had been made up and they needed to stop – enough"); and to Butts himself, on Dec. 5 ("I needed everyone to stop talking to me about SNC as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate").

Yet Butts told the committee he only learned that she considered her decision final during her testimony before the committee last week. Not only did he not recall her telling him, but neither the prime minister nor the clerk nor the finance minister nor the two PMO officials who reported to him breathed a word. Or was the problem, as he said at another point, that she did not tell the prime minister "in writing"?

Well, there's one way to sort this out: subpoena all emails, texts and other communication on the subject between the players named. Sorry - the Liberal majority on the committee voted not to do so. OK, then invite Wilson-Raybould back to testify, as Wernick was, and this time let her speak to the conversations surrounding her demotion from Justice - as Butts did at some length. No again, said the Liberal majority. Fine, well at least let's hear from some of the other players, starting with Bouchard and Marques. They are as yet not on the witness list.

On the other hand, the prime minister is reported to be weighing whether to make a statement of contrition. I suppose that will have to suffice.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/colby-cosh-so-who-is-misremembering-butts-or-wilson-raybould?video_autoplay=true

Colby Cosh: So who is 'misremembering' - Butts or Wilson-Raybould?

Of course he does not mean to cast any aspersions on the former attorney general or dispute her account of events. No no no

Colby Cosh   

March 6, 2019 5:20 PM EST

<snip>

The Liberal government's SNC situation clearly has a traplike nature. Until the criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin are heard in a trial and resolved, or until they are abandoned, the thing will remain news, and Liberals will suffer.

The government's line is that it was inappropriate for former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to make a final commitment to leaving her Director of Public Prosecutions alone and to living with the decision not to enter a plea-bargaining process with SNC-Lavalin. Her successor in the office, David Lametti, will not make such a commitment now. We will never get the reassurance of hearing that the matter is closed. The professed view of cabinet, what's left of it, is that it would be wrong to close it.

The government has tried to explain its belabouring of Wilson-Raybould as being perfectly appropriate. She was supposed to verrrry carefully consider the fate of 9,000 SNC-Lavalin jobs and a head office in Quebec, and then consider it again, and then consider it again. Butts tells us that they weren't looking for a particular politically convenient answer, mind you.

They just stayed after her to keep reconsidering the answer she kept giving, explicitly or implicitly. They reassured her at every turn that the decision was hers. And then they got rid of her and made it someone else's.

<snip>

But of course he does not mean to cast any aspersions on the former attorney general or dispute her factual account of events. No no no. Butts was not in a position to say in plain English that Wilson-Raybould had told untruths; that would look bad.

He is, whether he intends to, creating a pretext for Liberal surrogates in the media to say that Wilson-Raybould probably revised or obfuscated her memory of late 2018. Who knows who's telling the truth, really. But it looks like maybe Wilson-Raybould is bent on some kinda demented kamikaze revenge. Or maybe an undemocratic takeover of the Liberal party. See if we don't hear people saying all these things, and more.

In any events, the Butts story is that the January cabinet shuffle precipitated by Scott Brison's resignation was pure bad luck. Why Wilson-Raybould's position as justice minister would necessarily be involved in the shuffle at all was poorly explained. But Butts wants us to believe that the initial offer to transfer Wilson-Raybould to the Indigenous services ministry was actually a sign of the prime minister's high regard for her.

She balked, as an Indigenous person who did not want to be in the position of having anything to do with the Indian Act. This is a pretty common attitude, one might even say a prevalent one, among our First Nations. Butts admits he ought to have known that Wilson-Raybould might feel this way, although he does not say that the catastrophic aftereffects of the request - given that he and the PM couldn't just leave her the hell alone at Justice - were the reason he resigned. (Why not? It seems like as good a reason as any. Isn't this an instance of privilege-induced blindness causing harm?)

In theory, if you wanted to get rid of a truculent justice minister who won't put a thumb on the scales of justice, offering her a job you know she will never, ever take seems like a good way to set about doing that. But this is just an unhappy coincidence, and we are not to draw inferences from it. I would conclude that "The Liberal government undoubtedly meant well," but saying this sarcastically has, I am afraid, already become a Canadian cliché.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/political-opinion/2019/03/06/justin-trudeaus-snc-lavalin-explanation-cant-come-soon-enough.html

Justin Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin explanation can't come soon enough

By Chantal HébertStar Columnist Wed., March 6, 2019

When Gerald Butts appeared in front of the House of Commons justice committee on Wednesday, he did not to try to topple Jody Wilson-Raybould from her truth-teller pedestal in the SNC-Lavalin affair - almost certainly an impossible mission - but he did chip away at its base.

From the same basic facts, Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary wove a strikingly different narrative of the interactions that took place between the prime minister, his inner circle and the former attorney general over the handling of the judicial file of the Montreal engineering firm.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-ivison-the-near-certainty-of-liberal-wrongdoing-now-reduced-to-a-nagging-suspicion?utm_campaign=magnet&utm_source=article_page&utm_medium=recommended_articles

John Ivison: The near certainty of political interference now reduced to a nagging suspicion

Despite its shortcomings, Gerald Butts' account was the first coherent counter-narrative to the one offered by Wilson-Raybould

John Ivison   

March 6, 2019 6:42 PM EST

Gerald Butts' testimony at the justice committee did not present any exculpatory evidence that would exonerate the Trudeau government from allegations that it engaged in a pattern of interference in the independence of the attorney general.

But he may have placed doubt in the minds of the jury.

Justin Trudeau's former principal secretary made clear he was not going to engage in a mud-slinging contest with Jody Wilson-Raybould over her testimony before the same committee last week. Instead, he gave a calm counter-argument to many of the points she raised.

However, his powers of persuasion were lacking when questions moved to exchanges between the former attorney general and members of the prime minister's staff, and the clerk of the Privy Council – conversations in which Butts was not directly involved and about which he was reduced to offering robust character references.

<snip>

n one curious episode, Butts said he learned just last week in her testimony that Wilson-Raybould made her final decision not to overrule the DPP on September 16 – even though in her testimony she said she told Trudeau she had made up her mind during their meeting on September 17.

It seems inconceivable that this information was not passed on to Butts, but this blissful ignorance allowed him and others in the PMO to continue to urge Wilson-Raybould to take another look at the file.

<snip>

(This opinion piece is not being well-accepted in the comments section - Loachman)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 07, 2019, 10:00:21
https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-butts-testimony-have-i-mentioned-the-9000-jobs/

The Butts testimony: Have I mentioned the 9,000 jobs?

Paul Wells: Someone close to the PM finally explained their thinking around this scandal. It revealed a political operation whose judgment was hard to admire.

by Paul Wells

Mar 6, 2019

<snip>

Does it seem to you that I'm depicting those two imperatives in a way that makes it seem the jobs were more important to Butts and his colleagues than the prosecutor's independence? Well, I'm stuck with the material. Check out the very next thing he said. "So, it was and is the attorney general's decision to make. It would, however, be Canadians' decision to live with. [My emphasis - pw] Specifically, the 9,000-plus people who could lose their jobs, as well as the many thousands more who work on the company's supply chain."

I read this as Butts saying they were being careful to protect the AG's right to be catastrophically wrong and ruin thousands of people's lives. The weird tedious Cape Breton theatre Butts indulged in throughout his appearance-look, I've testified before a parliamentary committee, and I didn't turn it into Sarnia Reminiscences Hour-was part of this. I come from a land too well acquainted with grief, he seemed to be saying. I don't know why this fancy-pants AG from Vancouver was deaf to the voices of the precariously employed.

Wilson-Raybould has testified that, when informed on Sept. 4 that public prosecutor Kathleen Roussel had decided to prosecute instead of negotiating a DPA, she "immediately put in motion… a careful consideration and study of the matter." By Sept. 16 she had decided "that it was inappropriate for me to intervene in the decision of the director of public prosecutions."

Butts finds it impossible to believe such a review could have been concluded in 12 days. He believes no decision could be final until "a verdict is rendered." He is, in fact, amazed to learn that Wilson-Raybould thought her final decision was… a final decision. He would prefer-he thought it was the case that-any decision to go to trial would not be final even after the trial had begun, or indeed, at any point until the end of the trial. There would, in this analysis, be nothing inappropriate about the finance minister's chief of staff checking in with Wilson-Raybould on the possibility of hoisting the SNC-Lavalin trial, say, today or this coming November or next Easter.

To put labels on the two viewpoints here, Wilson-Raybould obviously thought a decision by the AG to interfere in decisions about public prosecutions should be exceptional. Butts thinks it should be routine. Wilson-Raybould wants the independence of the director of public prosecutions to be robust. Butts wants that independence to be minimal.

This takes us to the cabinet shuffle that ended with Wilson-Raybould being moved to veterans' affairs. We don't flatter Butts if we take him at his word here, for he describes some very shaky political thinking.

Scott Brison tells Butts and Katie Telford on Dec. 12 he's leaving politics. With what I have learned is comically characteristic insouciance, they assume a grown man does not believe the simple sentences coming from his mouth, and they spend the rest of calendar year 2018 in denial. Brison comes back from Christmas break and it turns out he meant what he said. So now they have to rush a cabinet shuffle they could have considered at leisure.

They need a strong minister at Treasury Board. It can only be Jane Philpott. But she leaves a serious vacancy behind her, at Indigenous Services. Any number of "capable people and experienced lawyers" could handle Justice, but Wilson-Raybould is "perhaps [the] only" one who can handle Indigenous Services, so Trudeau offers it to her. [UPDATE: I've edited this paragraph and the next, to better reflect Butts's testimony – pw] And she says no. Because she's Indigenous, and the operating assumptions behind Indigenous Services are Indian Act assumptions, and she's spent her life opposing the Indian Act. "Frankly, I should have thought she would say" that, Butts admits, but he's amazed she would turn down any new assignment, and he and Trudeau quickly decide she must be given another post, pour encourager les autres. So she gets Veterans' Affairs, after Seamus O'Regan vacates it.

Wait. What? Indigenous Services is the Prime Minister's personal highest priority. And Seamus O'Regan - a broadcaster with two political science degrees who's fleeing Veterans' Affairs before its stakeholders chase him out-is the man for the job?

As I say, you don't even have to disbelieve any of that to be unimpressed.

But perhaps the most striking thing about Butts's testimony was his repeated refusal to answer MPs' repeated questions about Wilson-Raybould's repeated assertions that a cavalcade of PMO and other staffers, and the Prime Minister himself, warned her repeatedly that Liberals would lose their jobs in elections because of her decision.

That's important because of this passage from the Trudeau government's version of the Open and Accountable Government ethics handbook, which the Prime Minister invited every minister to read and take to heart when this government came to office. At section F.5 of that document, we can read the following. "The Attorney General and the DPP are bound by the constitutional principle that the prosecutorial function be exercised independently of partisan concerns."

The words that leap out at me from that sentence are bound, constitutional and partisan. The first means that as soon as partisan calculations enter the picture, they are bound-they no longer have any choice. The second elevates this consideration above merely routine or even legal considerations, to the highest plane of our law: that of constitutional principle. And the third is the tripwire. You cannot warn the attorney general of Liberal losses without binding her to protect the prosecutor's independence.

<snip>

Taken together, Butts's testimony adds up to a portrait of a governing inner circle that would not ever take a "no" from a director of public prosecutions as final. They would not ever take Jody Wilson-Raybould's refusal to correct the prosecutor as final. They could not believe an important decision could be made in a week and a half. They could not, themselves, manage a cabinet shuffle in a much longer span of time, except by making a mockery of its central strategic imperative. And they can provide no evidence for the jobs claim that, to this day, Gerald Butts still uses to browbeat anyone who would disagree with the government's behaviour throughout this saga.

This was Team Trudeau's best day since the saga began, because at least it featured somebody close to the Prime Minister speaking in complete sentences in a setting outside a campaign rally or a space-exploration news conference. I still found very little of it encouraging.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-trudeau-acknowledges-erosion-of-trust-between-pmo-wilson-raybould-2/

Trudeau acknowledges 'erosion of trust' between PMO, Wilson-Raybould over SNC-Lavalin case

Steven Chase
Daniel Leblanc Parliamentary affairs reporter
Robert Fife Ottawa Bureau Chief

Published 9 minutes ago

Prime Minster Justin Trudeau says he didn't realize there was an "erosion of trust" between his office and former attorney-general Jody Wilson-Raybould over the fall of 2018 and admitted he should have realized this was taking place.

The Prime Minister used an early morning press conference in Ottawa to speak at length about the political crisis that has engulfed his government over the past month and triggered the resignation of one of his most senior aides and two cabinet ministers including Ms. Wilson-Raybould.

He offered no apologies for what has taken place, admitted no wrongdoing in what has unfolded since The Globe and Mail reported on Feb. 7 that officials in the Prime Minister's Office put pressure on Ms. Wilson-Raybould to reach a negotiated settlement with SNC-Lavalin.

Jody Wilson-Raybould testified to the Commons Justice Committee that she faced "consistent and sustained" political pressure from Mr. Trudeau and top officials when she was attorney-general, including "veiled threats" to shelve the criminal prosecution of the Montreal construction and engineering giant.

What Mr. Trudeau did acknowledge Thursday morning is that he should have paid more attention to growing friction between his staff and Ms. Wilson Raybould.

"What has become clear over the various testimonies is over the past months there was an erosion or trust between my office, my former principal secretary and the former attorney-general," Mr. Trudeau told reporters at the National Press Theatre.

"I was not aware of that erosion of trust. As Prime Minister and leader of the federal ministry, I should have been," he said.

He said he will be seeking outside advice on whether to separate the posts of attorney-general and justice minister as well as practices and operations of cabinet.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: garb811 on March 07, 2019, 10:22:13
Folks, after a good start to the discussion on this issue, things have gotten wobbly. I went though and cleaned a few things up and issued a couple of warnings last night and now I’m having to play catch-up again... There is no reason for the decline in the level of discourse, bring it back to where it was.

Milnet.ca Staff

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on March 07, 2019, 10:45:06
Took me some time to find a copy of Trudeau's full speech this morning but finally found it here:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-trudeau-says-erosion-of-trust-behind-snc-lavalin-scandal-1.4325886 (https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-trudeau-says-erosion-of-trust-behind-snc-lavalin-scandal-1.4325886)

For some strange reason I had thought he might do the right thing today and take responsibility but, in short, all he is saying is that he unfortunately didn't know that Butts had "lost lost" in JWR and that he should have known this and further that it's too bad that she didn't come to him to tell him how she really felt. He never did say why he demoted her out of Justice/AG but I guess it's that "lost trust" thing.

Looking forward to many more weeks of disbelief by just about everyone.

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FJAG on March 07, 2019, 10:55:20
Here's Fox News take on the press conference:

Quote
Justin Trudeau denies wrongdoing, refuses to apologize in rare address of corruption scandal threatening his political life
By Lukas Mikelionis | Fox News

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau on Thursday addressed for the first time the corruption scandal that threatens to bring down his administration, saying there was a breakdown in trust and communication with his former justice minister – but he stopped short of an apology.

“I was not aware of that erosion of trust, and as prime minister and head of cabinet, I should have been,” Trudeau said during a news conference in Ottawa. “Ultimately, I believe our government will be stronger for having wrestled with these issues.”

This was the first time Trudeau addressed the brewing scandal and allegations that he and his administration pressured Jody Wilson-Raybould to not to take action against a powerful Canadian engineering company in a case involving allegations of corruption in Libya.

Yet Trudeau remained defiant and rebuked calls to apologize during the press conference, saying “no” to an apology to the Canadian people and said his administration acted appropriately.

He did, however, note that he will indeed apologize later today – to an indigenous Inuit community for the federal government’s mistreatment during the tuberculosis epidemics of the 1940s, 50s and 60s when the community was split apart.

. . .

Full article here:

https://www.foxnews.com/world/justin-trudeau-denies-wrongdoing-refuses-to-apologize-in-rare-address-of-corruption-scandal-threatening-his-political-life (https://www.foxnews.com/world/justin-trudeau-denies-wrongdoing-refuses-to-apologize-in-rare-address-of-corruption-scandal-threatening-his-political-life)

 :cheers:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: dangerboy on March 07, 2019, 11:28:32
I wonder if this apology to the Inuit community had been planned and always supposed to occur today or if this is just something to distract from the scandal? It just seems out of the blue.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on March 07, 2019, 11:31:20
Remember the Principles of Leadership? I don’t think the PM took that Performance Objective did he? As for his apology, I listened to it (sort of) and his delivery in my opinion was horrible.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 07, 2019, 11:37:30
I wonder if this apology to the Inuit community had been planned and always supposed to occur today or if this is just something to distract from the scandal? It just seems out of the blue.
Just because we only just heard about it doesn't mean it hasn't been in the works for some time. I'm guessing any time any PM + 2 cabinet ministers travel for more than one event in one place, there's some planning involved.  Given this morning's timings, I suspect the news conference was tacked on early to take into account already-planned events like traveling 1/2 way across the country.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jed on March 07, 2019, 12:03:31
The PMO probably has an official apology tour all planned up just ready to engage as required. Lol
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 07, 2019, 12:56:32
The jobs excuse is just that, a weak excuse.

Construction people change companies all the time. If one company can't fill a contract, another will.

The net jobs, workers and contracts are still there in the same numbers, with, or without SNC.

The only ones losing their jobs over this are the mandarins in the Montreal corporate office. Personal and/or business friends of our current PM.

That, and the Elites will have to start at ground zero and build a new front for their liberal money machine.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 07, 2019, 13:10:24
My GF knows ZERO about news and/or politics.....she was shocked at what a horrible speaker and how he seemed to be just plain 'smarmy'. [yes,thats how bad she is, never even heard him speak before]  She's happy now, back to her android box full of old stupid television shows, just like waaaaaaaaay too many Canadians I fear.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 07, 2019, 13:18:57
One thing that sticks out for me is the repeated narrative of "if there was a problem, she should have spoken up."

#BlameTheVictim/#NoMeansNo much?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Technoviking on March 07, 2019, 13:23:10
While the old saying hell hath no fury etc., I've been looking at the back grounds of DMs and Department heads and advisors to both of these former Ministers of the Crown. It seems they both have assembled quite the collage of seething, indignant feminists in their departments.

Are there any other kinds?   :whistle:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: daftandbarmy on March 07, 2019, 13:39:32
Are there any other kinds?   :whistle:

Yes, like the CEO of General Motors for one: Mary Barra

https://www.gm.com/our-company/leadership/corporate-officers.html

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-barra-29469712/
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Technoviking on March 07, 2019, 13:44:24
Yes, like the CEO of General Motors for one: Mary Barra

https://www.gm.com/our-company/leadership/corporate-officers.html

https://www.linkedin.com/in/mary-barra-29469712/
Successful women are not necessarily feminists.

#FeminismIsCancer
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 07, 2019, 13:52:25
The PMO probably has an official apology tour all planned up just ready to engage as required. Lol

I bet.

Justins 2019 Apology tour.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 07, 2019, 14:20:42
Aaaaaaaaaaand a friendly reminder from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada today via Twitter (https://twitter.com/PPSC_SPPC/status/1103679348689776640) ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on March 07, 2019, 14:23:59
Cue the new AG having a chat with some of his staff in 3...2...1...?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 07, 2019, 14:45:10
Just read a synopsis of Wernick's testimony. https://www.thepostmillennial.com/privy-council-clerk-michael-wernick-exposed-as-a-liar-in-vicious-roasting-by-mps/

I'm reminded of the US Intelligence committees. Where someone comes in and pleads the 5th to every question asked. Clarifying about statements he says he doesn't remember saying? How does that work? You either don't remember, or you do.

We're getting to see the real liberal party at work here. The nuts and bolts of the organization. A peek behind the curtain of the great and powerful Oz. Corruption, scandal, lies, cronyism, nepotism and deceit. Not the sunny ways, unicorn and rainbows claptrap that keeps drooling out of trudeau's mouth to placate the masses.

In the US, you could likely charge them under RICO laws. Here, the liberals just change the law to suit their particular situation.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: QV on March 07, 2019, 14:48:51
Cue the new AG having a chat with some of his staff in 3...2...1...?

And hopefully that conversation gets leaked to the Globe too
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 07, 2019, 15:03:55
It seems unreasonable to me that the Libs might think that JWR and Philpott have emptied the ammo locker on this one.
Edit: and i think the one thing that finally sent PMJT over the edge was the MacLeans magazine cover "The Imposter". If he apologizes he would be admitting he actually is an Imposter.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: FSTO on March 07, 2019, 15:10:43
It seems unreasonable to me that the Libs might think that JWR and Philpott have emptied the ammo locker on this one.

What makes you think that they (LPC) think of any COA that is not based on their adversaries not being as smart and Machiavellin as the PMO?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 07, 2019, 15:15:21
Weird how that posted while I was still drafting it?

To answer your question: there are known unknowns, and unknown unknowns :)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 07, 2019, 16:39:59
Aaaaaaaaaaand a friendly reminder from the Public Prosecution Service of Canada today via Twitter (https://twitter.com/PPSC_SPPC/status/1103679348689776640) ...

And reiterating

From Feb 12

Quote
STATEMENT FROM THE PUBLIC PROSECUTION SERVICE OF CANADA
OTTAWA – February 12, 2019 – In light of comments made in the press regarding the prosecution of Vice Admiral Mark Norman, the Public Prosecution Service of Canada would like to clarify the context of the conversations between PPSC counsel and counsel for the Privy Council Office.

The document was PPSC counsel’s notes of conversations between crown counsel and counsel for the Privy Council Office. In the process of preparing for trial, the PPSC was looking to identify potential witnesses who could explain issues of cabinet confidence, as it is applied by the Clerk of the Privy Council.   The PPSC will be producing an unredacted version of the notes on Friday to the judge.

The PPSC has not sought or received instructions in respect of the prosecution of Mr. Norman from the Privy Council Office or any other government department or body.

Director of Public Prosecutions Ms. Kathleen Roussel said: “I am confident that our prosecutors, in this and every other case, exercise their discretion independently and free from any political or partisan consideration.”

The principle of prosecutorial independence is key to the PPSC’s mandate. PPSC prosecutors are expected to be objective, independent, and dispassionate in the exercise of their duties, and to exercise those duties in a manner free from any improper influence, including political influence.

– 30 –

It seems that Ms Roussel and her Prosecutors are at pains to declare their freedom from influence..... Twice in a month.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 07, 2019, 16:53:23
Cue the new AG having a chat with some of his staff in 3...2...1...?

Already done apparently

@PPSC hasn't Tweeted
When they do, their Tweets will show up here.

https://twitter.com/ppsc?lang=en



Edit:  I stand corrected.  Apparently this isn't the correct link

See below

https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,129826.msg1564134.html#msg1564134

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 07, 2019, 16:56:32
So, we're all done here?

We're all good?  It was a learning experience.  It won't happen again.  Let's move on.

Nothing to see here.... move along, Mr. Norman,....move along.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 07, 2019, 17:02:04
Funny tweet from one of Trudeaus MPs.

Quote
MP Celina
“I believe real leadership is about listening, learning &  compassion...central to my leadership is fostering an environment where my Ministers, caucus & staff feel comfortable coming to me when they have concerns” I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?

I wonder what she means by that. Guessing his highness's reaction wasn't all sunny ways? Maybe she just has a different recollection of the events lol

https://twitter.com/MPCelina


Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Furniture on March 07, 2019, 17:18:24
Funny tweet from one of Trudeaus MPs.

I wonder what she means by that. Guessing his highness's reaction wasn't all sunny ways? Maybe she just has a different recollection of the events lol

https://twitter.com/MPCelina

I do hope she shares "her truth" about this.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: dapaterson on March 07, 2019, 18:32:13
Already done apparently

@PPSC hasn't Tweeted
When they do, their Tweets will show up here.

https://twitter.com/ppsc?lang=en

You are mistaken.  Twitter is at: https://twitter.com/ppsc_sppc
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 07, 2019, 18:40:33
You are mistaken.  Twitter is at: https://twitter.com/ppsc_sppc

Thanks for the correction.  See above.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 07, 2019, 19:55:28
https://boereport.com/2019/03/06/column-excusing-bribery-hurts-not-helps-canadian-jobs/

Column: Excusing bribery hurts, not helps, Canadian jobs

March 6, 201912:21 PM Craig Pichach

Responding to allegations of political interference into criminal charges against SNC-Lavalin executives, the Prime Minister has been quoted as saying “we will always stand up for Canadian jobs”.

Trudeau’s excusing of unethical conduct by executives at SNC-Lavalin is not standing up for jobs, in the long run he is putting jobs at risk. At worst, he is encouraging Canadian companies to engage in criminal acts opening the door for our economy to stagnate and degrade.

SNC-Lavalin has enjoyed special treatment in obtaining government contracts despite a 10-year World Bank ban and being charged again and again in engaging in corruption.

Why would SNC-Lavalin change if the government has their back. Trudeau’s Liberals continue to award contracts to this firm and help them escape justice.

What does one need to do to ‘earn’ this special treatment given this would never occur for an Alberta based engineering company? Is the Prime Minister saying to get special treatment we are to bribe our way into contracts and move headquarters to Quebec? You would hope not but his actions speak louder than words.

Justin Trudeau is an engineering dropout so I forgive him for not understanding that bribery in bids is not ethical for the Professional Engineer. And yet Canadian engineering companies under Trudeau are to be not only awarded contracts for engaging in bribery but given special treatment? How is the international community supposed to trust Canadian engineering if this is the norm as the former Chief of Staff has said?

<snip>

This next one was previously mentioned, but Vice has now picked it up as well:

https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/zma8dx/liberal-mp-celina-caesar-chavannes-claps-back-at-justin-trudeau-over-his-non-apology

by Manisha Krishnan

Mar 7 2019, 12:05pm

Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes Claps Back at Justin Trudeau over His Non-Apology

The plot thickens.

A Liberal MP has clapped back at Prime Minister Justin Trudeau following a speech he made Thursday morning about the SNC-Lavalin controversy.

<snip>

“I believe that real leadership is about listening, learning and compassion,” he said. “One of the things central to my leadership is fostering an environment where my ministers, caucus and staff feel comfortable coming to me when they have concerns.”

Quoting that portion of Trudeau’s speech, Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes tweeted, “I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?”

She did not elaborate further.

VICE has reached out to Caesar-Chavannes for comment on her tweet and will update this post if she responds.

Last week, Caesar-Chavannes, the MP for Whitby, Ontario, announced that she would not be seeking re-election this year.

<snip>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-trudeau-bribery-1.5047337

SNC-Lavalin pushed Liberals for 'zero debarment' from federal contracts

Company looking to avoid being barred from federal contracts for an extended period

Jim Bronskill, Andy Blatchford The Canadian Press Posted: Mar 07, 2019 3:16 PM ET

SNC-Lavalin, facing a 10-year ban from federal business over corruption charges, urged the Liberal government in 2017 to water down the penalty scheme for corporate misconduct to the point where a guilty company could completely dodge a ban on receiving public contracts.

In essence, the engineering and construction giant recommended the Liberals leave wiggle room for a "zero debarment" time period under the government's integrity regime.

<snip>

A forthcoming proposal to update the integrity regime - which Public Services Minister Carla Qualtrough has said will be finalized in about a month - might have major consequences for SNC-Lavalin. It could help the embattled firm avoid a lengthy, economically punishing ban on federal contracts.

<snip>

The Liberal government came forward with a proposed new scheme last fall that includes no minimum ineligibility period.

The proposal, which triggered another round of public consultations, was intended to take effect in early 2019, but the government has not yet indicated whether or when it will proceed.

Qualtrough, the minister in charge of federal procurement, told a Commons committee last week the government wants more flexibility in the regime for dealing with companies that have integrity problems.

<snip>

In a written submission to the government consultation, SNC-Lavalin called on Ottawa to align its ineligibility guidelines with those of the United States, where an organization could be excluded from bidding on procurement contracts for up to three years, with the possibility of extension.

"This also means that discretion allows for a zero debarment time period," said the October 2017 submission.

SNC-Lavalin argued the current penalties were "sufficiently draconian" to discourage a company from disclosing wrongdoing by rogue employees. It said there should be "little or no consequence" for a firm that condemns bad conduct promptly and punishes the employees in question.

"When it comes to fostering a culture of good ethics in business, as the saying goes: 'One good sacking is worth a thousand memos."'

In sum, the company said the integrity rules should not result in punishment of companies that have "legitimately disavowed their employee's misconduct in ways that make it clear the company itself had no criminal intent to commit the misconduct."

<snip>
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 07, 2019, 21:09:19
You are mistaken.  Twitter is at: https://twitter.com/ppsc_sppc
And said Twitter post's still up (https://twitter.com/PPSC_SPPC/status/1103679348689776640) as of this post :)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 07, 2019, 22:28:45
- “Qualtrough, the minister in charge of federal procurement, told a Commons committee last week the government wants more flexibility in the regime for dealing with companies that have integrity problems.”

Except this company doesn’t just have an integrity problem. They have a predisposition to commit crimes problem, because it’s in their intergenerational history. This is nothing more than a corporatization of Gladue type sentencing. I’m surprised nobody put it that way to the former AG.  Take that Frankie!!
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Tcm621 on March 08, 2019, 02:49:23
SNC-Lavalin argued the current penalties were "sufficiently draconian" to discourage a company from disclosing wrongdoing by rogue employees.

I am fairly certain that if any company turned a quote rogue employee unquote who was committing crimes that company would be spared "draconian" penalties. The problem is that most companies try to cover things up and when they are caught they blame rogue employees who get let go, typically with healthy severance packages.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 08, 2019, 08:13:31
Article linked from the Charles Adler twitter/radio show:

Part one.

http://www.ottawalife.com/article/the-deep-state-the-trudeau-government-lobbyists-and-the-legalization-of-corruption-in-canada?c=1

The Deep State - The Trudeau Government, Lobbyists and the Legalization of Corruption in Canada - 6 Mar 19
      "There's no ***** like an old *****" - Brian Mulroney on the Liberal Government in 1984
   
What many people outside of Ottawa don't understand is that there is a parallel system of government in Ottawa. This Deep State has more power than the elected MPs and Ministers who are supposed to run the country. These people are the lobbyists who ply their trade with the efficiency of a surgeon’s scalpel. They ensure that banks, telecoms, airlines, special interest groups and large corporations like SNC Lavalin (SNC) can skirt the rules. They might even make special ones providing protections that everyday taxpayers would never receive. The big banks and credit card companies in Canada continually rake in billions of dollars in profits each quarter through services fees and other outrageous charges that can only be made in an uncompetitive, monopolistic banking structure—ever wonder how? These banks have a permanent lobby in Ottawa known as the Canadian Banking Association. They monitor legislation and issues, meet with key Ministers, and spin jargon to claim they are actually competitive businesses in order to justify their constant consumer fee increases and monopolistic banking practices.

For decades, they have shut down competition in Canadian banking. With government approval, they have colluded with insurance companies to increase fees and suppress competition in that industry as well. They have successfully shut down all attempts to rein in the double-digit credit card interest rates and the annual service fees and charges that are, essentially, legalized theft. Banks, airlines, marketing boards, telecoms and large corporations all support the Deep State, hiring former political aides or Ministers to work for them as “lobbyists.” They thrive in Ottawa and other provincial capitals.

In Ontario, during the Wynne regime, if you wanted to meet with a Minister you would often be redirected through a lobbyist or have to be affiliated with one to get access. Telecom lobbyists are especially active in Canada's Deep State; their sole purpose is to ensure that the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC), the federal body in charge of regulating the industry and rates for Canadians, remains a toothless eunuch. The telecom monopoly in Canada are vampires who have sucked the life and credibility out of this “regulatory body.” Canada has continually had the highest telephone, cable and cell phone rates in the western world for the past 4 decades—all thanks to lobbyists. Just look at your monthly cell phone bill.

You can “visit” the Deep State online by going to the website of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada—if you can call them that. “Commissioner” is the wrong title for this job: a better title would be “Maitre’D” of Lobbying. The current holder of the post, Nancy Bélanger, was appointed by Justin Trudeau on December 30, 2017, for a seven-year term. The government seemingly installed someone with no prior substantive corporate experience despite the fact that the majority of lobbying involves the business sector. Bélanger has never worked in the private sector and has spent her entire career in government, much of it working as a senior legal advisor with the Immigration and Refugee Board. To say she is a toothless tiger would be an understatement. Her silence about SNC lobbyist scandal rocking Canada's government and justice system speaks volumes about the impotency of her office.

The Trudeau Liberal government allowed the Deep State to achieve an unprecedented level of influence. They passed Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) legislation allowing for sentencing agreements between the government and a criminal corporation, where the criminal agrees to plead guilty and pay a large fine in exchange for a “get out of jail free” pass and the ability to continue to bid on more government contracts. As a result, corporations in Canada can now be involved in criminal acts and get off if they can pay; in essence, corruption and criminality are legal. This new law was cut in the back rooms of Ottawa at the behest of SNC-Lavalin and a cabal of other lobbyists who convinced an incognizant Prime Minister, a conceited Clerk of the Privy Council, a dimwitted Minister of Finance, several obstinate cabinet ministers and a caucus of sheep to pass this DPA legislation into law. They supported it despite the fact that it would allow for transformative changes in terms of how corporate criminal fraud cases would be prosecuted under the criminal code. When the matter was raised for debate by committee members at the Justice Committee, the Liberal majority on the committee shut down reviewing the DPA legislation. A Conservative Senator also flagged it but was voted down by the Trudeau appointed “independent” senators. The government buried the bill in the bowels of a larger Omnibus Bill that that included the 2018 Federal Budget Implementation Act. The DPA section is in Division 20 in Part 6 of the 385-page document (making Deferred Prosecution Agreements a legal part of the Criminal Code, Part XXII.1, “Remediation Agreements).

Conservative finance critic and Ottawa-Carleton MP Pierre Poilievre stumbled on the provision during Committee hearings to review the Budget Bill. He questioned why such a law was being put forward which allowed criminals to avoid prosecution. Surprisingly, the Chair of the Finance Committee, Liberal MP Wayne Easter, admitted he did even not know a criminal code change (DPAs) was in the budget bill. He told the committee, “there is a huge question whether this (DPA’s) should be in a budget bill.” Hull-Aylmer Liberal MP Greg Fergus told the committee that he too was surprised to see the DPA law in the budget bill and acknowledged that he learned of it when Poilievere mentioned it. “It left an uncomfortable taste in my mouth,” Fergus added. “It seems we are letting white-collar criminals off the hook with a slap on the wrist.”

Poilievre raised the matter again in the House of Commons in May 2018, asking Finance Minister Bill Morneau why the budget bill included “a provision that would allow accused white-collar criminals charged with bribery, fraud, insider trading and other offences to have all charges dropped.” Morneau responded, “We believe that our approach to deferred prosecution agreements will enable us to pursue an approach that is functioning and doing well in other economies—one that will result in more effective continuation of business success by companies once they have paid their dues to society.” In plain terms, Morneau was saying - do the crime, pay a big fine, and business as usual.

Despite their concerns about criminality, both Wayne Easter and Greg Fergus voted in favour of the DPA legislation without changes along with every other government MP. The law to resolve corporate offences in Canada under the Criminal Code and the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (DPA) took effect on September 19, 2018.

In February 2019, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick testified before the Justice Committee that DPA legislation had been a transparent process. He claimed all the rules were followed, asserting that the information on DPA’s were published in a February 2018 report highlighting public support for a DPA process in Canada. His presentation describing the transparency of it all was deserving of a bureaucrats gold star. In reality, DPA legislation was  cleverly crafted and passed in a way where its proponents could claim “transparency” in the process, when the exact opposite was true. The public had never been asked about them, Finance Committee MPs including the Committee Chair were not aware they had been slipped into the budget bill, the Liberal-dominated Justice Committee refused to allow discussion on them and they were never debated in an open and transparent manner in Parliament. Only lobbyists and select law firms were aware of this drastic change to the criminal code—of course, that is to be expected since these were the interested parties who drafted the content that became the basis of the new law. The Deep State hustlers for a DPA were SNC-Lavalin Chairman Kevin Lynch, SNC CEO Neil Bruce and a handful of seasoned lobbyists.

SNC-Lavalin and Past Criminal Activity

SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal-based corporation which provides engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) services in various industries including mining and metallurgy, oil and gas, environment and water, infrastructure and clean power. They have tens of thousands of employees worldwide, with offices and operations in over 160 countries.

In 2013, the World Bank banned SNC and its subsidiaries from any involvement in projects it finances for a decade – the longest debarment period it has ever imposed. These unprecedented sanctions followed an investigation into the alleged bribery of officials by SNC-Lavalin for projects in Bangladesh and Cambodia. The World Bank statement said, “SNC-Lavalin’s misconduct involved a conspiracy to pay bribes and misrepresentations when bidding for Bank-financed contracts.”

“This case is testimony to collective action against global corruption,” said Leonard McCarthy, World Bank Integrity Vice President. “Once we had evidence of the company’s misconduct, we referred the matter to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.” The World Bank’s action came at the same time that SNC-Lavalin was under investigation by Canadian and Swiss authorities over bribery payments in Libya and was facing a series of class-action lawsuits on other matters involving Canadian projects. In the months prior to the World Bank banning the company in 2013, its former CEO Pierre Duhaime was arrested in Montreal on charges of bribery related to the construction of a $1.3-billion hospital project in Montreal. He was found guilty on February 1, 2019 and sentenced to 20 months of house arrest after pleading guilty to a single charge in connection with the hospital fraud.

After the World Bank’s banning decision in 2013, newly placed SNC President and CEO Robert Card said, “The company’s decision to settle signals our determination as we go forward to set standards for ethics in business conduct and for good governance that are beyond reproach. The company has already taken, and will continue to take, measures to ensure rigorous compliance and control procedures are in place.” This was poppycock. SNC was still facing charges in Canada under the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA) for bribes totaling over $48 million to Libyan government officials, including former dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s son, Saadi, to secure government contracts. It was discovered that part of the money SNC executives paid in bribes to Gadhafi was used to finance a booze-filled cross-country tour for him to visit prostitutes in cities across Canada. By October 2018, the case was in preliminary hearings in the courts in Canada.

Desperate to avoid being held accountable for their alleged criminal activity, SNC hired Kevin Lynch in December 2017. Lynch is a former Clerk of the Privy Council (2006-2009), Secretary to the Cabinet, and Head of the Public Service of Canada as their new Chairman. Elected as Director and appointed as Vice-Chairman in May 2017, Lynch had been Vice-Chair of BMO Financial Group since leaving government in 2010. He still serves on the BMO Board. Mr. Lynch is neither a contractor, engineer, nor construction worker, but he is familiar with how government works and how laws are made. Canada's former highest “public servant”—generously paid and pensioned off by taxpayers after a 33-year career—was now one of the key executives running SNC-Lavalin.

Lynch had decades of expertise and a large network of contacts, and as the new Chair of SNC-Lavalin, he saw it fit to use his experience to lobby senior government Ministers and officials to pass DPA legislation. Lynch was not breaking any laws in doing the bidding for SNC. However, the ethics of Canada former "top civil servant " becoming the main maestro and strategist for a criminally convicted firm that was now lobbying government of Canada officials is another matter entirely. Working with SNC’s executive team and other lobbyists, a two-step process was devised to ensure SNC could avoid a criminal conviction in Canada. First, they would lobby the government to pass a DPA law. Then, SNC would utilize the DPA legislation to avoid criminal prosecution and potential jail time by paying a fine. Lynch and other Ottawa lobbyists (two of whom were key advisors to previous Prime Ministers) persuaded influential Trudeau Ministers to support DPAs under the ruse that by doing so they were protecting the jobs of innocent employees of SNC who might be affected by the fraud of company executives. Doing this, they said, was quite normal. Similar types of remediation agreement legislation had been passed in the United States, France, Brazil and Great Britain after the 2008 financial crisis. Interestingly, the only key Minister they did not lobby was Jody Wilson-Raybould, the Attorney General and Justice Minister of Canada.

The new law stated that DPAs were to be negotiated by the prosecution and the accused, and are subject to judicial approval. They could be accompanied by the payment of penalties, restitution, implementation of compliance measures, and other terms and conditions as negotiated by the parties including the potential appointment of corporate monitorships. Some offences are subject to resolution through a Remediation Agreement: bribery of public officials, both domestic and foreign, fraud, municipal corruption, insider trading, private bribery (secret commissions), money-laundering and other offences. Competition offences such as price-fixing, bid-rigging and misleading advertising were not part of the new law. The new law required judicial approval of remediation agreements and the potential involvement of victim representatives. Negotiations for a Remediation Agreement were to be formally initiated by the prosecution, but the expectation of the law was that accused corporations would be the ones to request the initiation of a negotiation as part of a company’s cooperation with an investigation.

Most importantly, prior to commencing a negotiation the prosecution must determine that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction, recognize that the negotiation is in the public interest, and obtain the consent of the Attorney General to the negotiation. If the Attorney General refuses, based on the advice of the prosecutors, the case proceeds to court. In the SNC case, prosecutors had determined that the company did not meet the DPA standard—period. By December 2018, that had been made very clear to the company. In an attempt to get the Justice department to change its mind, SNC issued a statement in December 2018, saying its Quebec operations were under threat as a result of "ongoing legal challenges."

Records show that SNC-Lavalin representatives met at the Prime Minister's Office 18 times between February 2016 and December 2018—an abnormal amount of access for anyone, let alone a company undergoing criminal prosecution. SNC and its lobbyists had 80 additional meetings with top officials at Global Affairs Canada, Innovation, Science and Economic Development, (including Innovation Minister Navdeep Bains himself), the Privy Council Office, Export Development Canada, Public Services and Procurement Canada and Public Safety, Treasury Board, and Natural Resources and Environment. They also met with many Senators including Peter Harder, the government's representative in the Senate. Curiously enough, they met with David MacNaughton, Canada’s Ambassador to the United States who had served as Ontario co-chair for the federal Liberal campaign in 2015. Before taking on the role of Ambassador, MacNaughton ran Strategy Corp, one of the most influential lobbying firms in the country.

The lobbyist registry stated the reason for all these meetings was “justice and law enforcement.” However, Lynch and the SNC lobbyists never met with Wilson-Raybould or anyone from the Department of Justice. They were using their Deep State influence to do an end run on the Attorney General of Canada. It is not known whether or not SNC Chairman and Former Clerk of the Privy Council Kevin Lynch and current Clerk of the Privy Council Office Michael Wernick had any private one-on-one conversations or phone conversations related to SNC. Most troubling of all is Wernick’s admission that he tried to convince Attorney General Wilson-Raybould to support a DPA for SNC.   Wilson-Raybould told the  Justice committee that  Michael Wernick, the clerk of the privy council,   said “there is a board meeting on [Sept. 20] with stock holders” and warned that the company “will likely be moving to London” without an intervention. Incredulously Wernick  and Finance Minister Bill Morneau could not produce one document to verify  the veracity of any of that  claim.  They apparently did not consider  that  this was a veiled threat  by SNC to get their way. The idea that SNC would move its corporate office to London England in the middle  of the Brexit crisis is beyond absurd. Trudeau himself  made the same claims without any evidence,  stressing that he represents an electoral district in Quebec where SNC employs people.However he too could cite no proof or evidence to support SNC was moving.  SNC  employs about 9,000 people in Canada and has  expressed publicly that it’s looking to relocate.Neil Bruce, chief executive of SNC, was quoted in a fourth-quarter conference call on February 22 saying the exact opposite “We've got plenty of opportunities to grow the business, outside of Canada. But also we are committed to the Canadian market and to our Canadian employees as well.” Further, SNC has a number of legal and commercial agreements that require it to stay in Montreal until at least 2023. So the whole "moving thing" was a ploy that Wernick and Trudeau fell for hook,line and sinker.  Many questioned why Wernick, Canada’s most senior  “public servant” and Finance Minister Bill Morneau were so intimately involved in shilling for a large corporation without  at least doing some basic due diligence. Wernick  told the Justice Committee that he raised concerns about SNC having an impact on the Quebec elections—which is absolutely none of his business as the “apolitical” Clerk.

On February 12, Attorney General Jody Wilson-Raybould resigned from cabinet. In testimony before the Justice Committee, she said she believed she had been removed from her role as Attorney General because she refused to be pressured into allowing SNC to obtain a DPA to avoid criminal prosecution. She asserts that direct and constant pressure to do so came from Prime Minister Trudeau, Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick, Principal Secretary Gerald Butts, Chief of Staff Katie Telford, and others in the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) and Minister of Finance's office .

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 08, 2019, 08:15:22
Part two of The Deep State - The Trudeau Government, Lobbyists and the Legalization of Corruption in Canada - 6 Mar 19

The SNC-Lavalin affair raises several governance  and ethical issues that strike at the heart of Canada's democracy. More importantly, the scandal raises questions about the actions and integrity of some of Canada's most senior public servants and elected officials.

1. Why was the Clerk of the Privy Council, Canada's top public servant, Michael Wernick so personally engaged in a lobbying process to get SNC a DPA?

2. Why didn’t the Commissioner of Lobbying take notice of the 80 meetings and inquire as to the efficacy of these meetings?

3. How is it possible that the two key government MPs on the Finance Committee including the Chairman, Liberal MP Wayne Easter did not know that new DPAs legislation that would dramatically change Canada’s laws with regards to corporate fraud and corruption had been included in the budget bill?.

4. Why did the Chair of the House of Commons Finance Committee Wayne Easter vote for DPA's in the budget bill after he raised concerns about the ethicality of these agreements being put in a budget bill?

5. Why did the Justice committee not review the DPA legislation in an open and transparent manner before it was passed?

6. Why and when did lobbyists meet with the then-President of the Treasury Board, Scott Brison, in this matter? Did Kevin Lynch promise Scott Brison anything for supporting DPAs? Brison resigned from cabinet in his role as Treasury Board President in February 2019 to “spend more time with his family,” yet within weeks, he announced that he had taken a new job as vice-chair of investment and corporate banking with the Bank of Montreal. Kevin Lynch is on the Board of Directors at the Bank of Montreal.

7. Has the Commissioner for Lobbying or the Ethics Commissioner at the House of Commons asked to see records of all correspondence, calls and meetings between Kevin Lynch and Scott Brison between 2016-2019? If not, why haven’t they requested this information?

8. Why did SNC press for a DPA for economic reasons when the legislation explicitly states that job dislocation is not a qualifying reason to obtain a DPA?

9. Why did SNC Lavalin representatives report meeting for lobbying communications on “justice and law enforcement,” with Canada’s ambassador to the United States David MacNaughton on Oct.17 and Nov.7, 2018? Before being named US Ambassador, Mr. MacNaughton was the Chairman of StrategyCorp, a communications, public affairs and lobbying company in Ottawa. What was discussed at the meetings with MacNaughton, and did he push for the DPA for SNC with the PM and PMO? If so, why? Was he acting in his role as Ambassador or in some other capacity? The real point is—why is Canada's Ambassador to the United States involved in helping SNC at all?

10. Why were Prime Minister Trudeau, Finance Minister Bill Morneau, Principal Secretary Gerald Butts, PMO Chief of Staff Katie Telfer, and Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick — all non-lawyers pressuring the Justice Minister and Attorney General of Canada to interfere in a criminal case?

It is quite common for executives in private businesses and corporations in Canada to sign professional standards agreements once a year with language that states they will not participate or engage in offering bribes, enticements or gifts to any official to another company or government. Ironically, over several years, the government of Canada has paid billions of taxpayers’ dollars in contracts to SNC. This is a key part of why the company has been very profitable. In fact, SNC’s main business in Canada is from government contracts. It is thus reasonable to assert that any bribe SNC made to anyone else—either directly or indirectly—had its genesis from us, the Canadian taxpayers.

Prime Minister Trudeau asserts that Canada is a "rule of law" country when it comes to commercial business practices. However, he did not apply that standard to himself or this government. Instead, he supported and passed DPA legislation at the behest and request of the Deep State.  Seen through this lens, one can easily understand why China is so upset about the arrest of Huawei Executive Meng Wanzhou. Huawei and Meng have never been charged or convicted of corruption. Meng is detained in Canada on a warrant with limited freedom. Yet SNC, a company convicted of fraud and bribery (including paying bribes for prostitution), gets special treatment from a government tripping over themselves to ensure they did everything possible so SNC could avoid prosecution. It appears the Chinese government would have been much further ahead in the Meng arrest if they hired Kevin Lynch or another Deep State operative to be their lobbyist. Maybe they should call Gerald Butts. Apparently he is looking for work.

By: Dan Donovan


Publisher and Managing Editor
Dan Donovan is the founding Publisher of Ottawa Life Magazine, the capital’s largest and longest running (est. 1996) general interest and lifestyles magazine. His work has been featured in The Globe and Mail, Financial Post, Sun, Ottawa Citizen, Masthead Magazine and The Hill Times. He is a regular guest commentator on public policy matters on CFRA, 1310 AM and the Corus networks Charles Adler Radio Show. He is a former Vice President of Government and Public Affairs at Magna International. He served as Chief of Staff to the former federal minister of youth and labour and as Director of Publications and Communications at the National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. He is a former Director of Environment Policy at The International Chamber of Commerce in Paris, France. Dan holds degrees from both the University of Ottawa and the Université de Strasbourg (Institut d’Etudes Politique et Economie). He is a past member of the Executive Committee and the Board of the Conference of Defence Associations Institute, former member of the Board of the National Cycling Centre and a former governor of the Canada's Sports Hall of Fame. His first book, True Grits, New Grits was published by Hemlock press in 1993.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 08, 2019, 08:46:29
Three big mistakes Trudeau made at his #LavScam press conference

1. He didn’t apologize. After Trudeau’s office leaked that the beleaguered Liberal leader was deliberating about an apology for the SNC-Lavalin scandal, we all kind of expected one. We didn’t get one. And when Trudeau was asked why, he blinked and stammered and looked offended. Dumb. Apologies cost nothing, Petit Justin. But if done right, they pay many dividends.

2. He didn’t take responsibility. Even if you don’t apologize – even if you don’t express the smallest amount of regret, which Trudeau didn’t do either – it’s important that you accept that the proverbial buck stops with you. Trudeau (again) said that it’s all Jody Wilson-Raybould’s fault. “She didn’t come to me,” he wheezed. Well, actually, she did. You just wouldn’t listen.

3. He didn’t sound sincere. Justin Trudeau’s greatest strength is his acting ability. He is an expert at radiating wet-eyed sincerity and emotion – kind of like our Labrador retrievers, when we come home and discover they’ve eaten an entire living room sofa. At his press conference, Trudeau had all the conviction of an ISIS hostage reading a statement prepared by his captors. This was a truly historic moment, and Trudeau needed to convince us. He didn’t.

http://warrenkinsella.com/2019/03/three-big-mistakes-trudeau-made-at-his-lavscam-press-conference/
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 08, 2019, 09:00:36
Second article linked from the Charles Adler twitter/radio show:

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/just-facts-maam-cory-g-litzenberger/

Just the Facts Ma'am - 7 Mar 19


Cory G. Litzenberger CPA, CMA, CFP, C.Mgr; President & Founder, CGL Strategic Business & Tax Advisors - Red Deer, AB

 
Quote
@charlesadler
 
#SNCLavalin Just the #Facts by Cory Litzenberger a Canadian tax specialist who got tired of the spin and went searching for the most relevant facts driving #JodyWilsonRaybauld and the prosecutors' decision not to give #SNCLavalin a #DPA
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 08, 2019, 10:49:29
And it is now all old news. He’s moved on, the msm are moving on. Barring something nuclear about the matter, it is soon to be a non issue. Yes, the Liberals are washing their shorts, but Tide cleans everything.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 08, 2019, 12:34:50
If you find a technically legal way to do something unethical or unseemly, it is still unethical or unseemly.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 08, 2019, 12:59:47
And it is now all old news. He’s moved on, the msm are moving on ...
Not from where I get a lot of my news yet (https://news.google.com/stories/CAAqOQgKIjNDQklTSURvSmMzUnZjbmt0TXpZd1NoTUtFUWktdnRqWGpZQU1FY0VTeERuWUZpeGdLQUFQAQ?hl=en-CA&gl=CA&ceid=CA%3Aen) - YMMV

Meanwhile (emphasis mine) ...
Quote
The Federal Court of Canada has dismissed a request by SNC-Lavalin to review a federal prosecutor’s decision declining to settle criminal charges against the company out of court.

“It has no reasonable prospect of success in the context of the law and the governing jurisprudence and taking a realistic view,” Federal Court Justice Catherine Kane said in her ruling, issued Friday.

“The law is clear that prosecutorial discretion is not subject to judicial review, except for abuse of process. The decision at issue – whether to invite an organization to enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement – clearly falls within the ambit of prosecutorial discretion and the nature of decisions that prosecutors are regularly called to make in criminal proceedings.” ...
More at #BoughtMediaTM Globe & Mail here (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-judge-strikes-down-sncs-request-to-review-prosecutors-decision-to/).
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 08, 2019, 13:51:45
If you find a technically legal way to do something unethical or unseemly, it is still unethical or unseemly.

Brad I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that just as many successful businesses as not operate and capitalize directly in that space. Bank fees and credit card interest rates, for example.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on March 08, 2019, 16:16:06
If you find a technically legal way to do something unethical or unseemly, it is still unethical or unseemly.

Agreed. That smarmy a$$hole who raised the price of anti HIV drugs in the US about three years ago is a good example of that. Remember that piece of sh!t?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: mariomike on March 08, 2019, 16:45:21
That < snip > who raised the price of anti HIV drugs in the US about three years ago is a good example of that. Remember that < snip >?

Martin Shkreli?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on March 08, 2019, 17:03:18
Martin Shkreli?

Could be.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: mariomike on March 08, 2019, 17:10:48
Could be.

I think it might be.
https://www.google.com/search?ei=DdqCXIC7L46asQXex7egBQ&q=%22Martin+Shkreli%22+hiv&oq=%22Martin+Shkreli%22+hiv&gs_l=psy-ab.3..35i39.22787.26712..27239...0.0..0.93.186.2......0....1..gws-wiz.YOJCsCqrEKw

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 08, 2019, 17:20:07
Conservatives will NOT introduce non-confidence motion against Trudeau in Parliament

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/03/08/federal-conservatives-not-introducing-non-confidence-motion-against-trudeau-2/#.XILb_WJOk0O

All but over now?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: BurnDoctor on March 08, 2019, 17:26:13
Conservatives will NOT introduce non-confidence motion against Trudeau in Parliament

https://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2019/03/08/federal-conservatives-not-introducing-non-confidence-motion-against-trudeau-2/#.XILb_WJOk0O

All but over now?

Um...Interrogative...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

I really wish they’d keep the boot on the neck.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2019, 17:31:24
Not hardly Cloud Cover

Found this via David Akin's Facebook

Quote
Killer column from National Observer's Sandy Garrossino who just happens to be a former Crown prosecutor.

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/08/analysis/hidden-key-snc-lavalin-scandal?fbclid=IwAR0Anz-7a1HlZgqaC3zYpA0yF9kBGRXrA4rswNLiiy53yp6objYnAc-Fwyc


Quote
SNC-Lavalin, a Canadian corporate giant with an established history of corruption, is charged with bribing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi's brutal regime over many years, in exchange for lucrative contracts.

This case is the most serious and important prosecution of corporate corruption in modern Canadian history, and we're arguing about jobs and whether Jody Wilson-Raybould is hard to get along with.

It is not only appropriate, but essential that this matter go to trial in an open and public hearing, so that Canadians can see how the world's bloodiest tyrants are cossetted, indulged, and enabled.

Perhaps the most depressing spectacle of the entire affair is watching Justin Trudeau, a man who clearly aspires to greatness, debase himself and this nation, by begging, pushing, imploring Canada's attorney general to let this company off the hook.

Then effectively firing her when she wouldn't comply, and allowing her credibility to be undermined.

Just what kind of story does he think SNC-Lavalin's caught up in, Anne of Green Gables?

SNC, a corporate giant, bribed a bloody despot's regime in exchange for billions in contracts
For 16 years the global engineering and construction giant SNC-Lavalin cultivated a close relationship with the Muammar Gaddafi family, particularly his son Saadi.

According to criminal charges, for almost a decade of that period, up until the fall of the regime, SNC paid Saadi Gaadafi almost $50 million in exchange for billions of dollars in airport, pipeline, and water infrastructure projects.

Oh, and prisons.

Let's go over that again.

A Canadian company is charged with bribing a family infamous around the world for murder, torture, rape, abductions, and widespread human rights abuses, and doing it for its own profit. They didn't stop until the regime collapsed in 2011 and Swiss authorities came knocking. Charges were laid in April 2015.

Because of corruption's profoundly oppressive impact on the Libyan people, the SNC-Libya charges are vastly more serious even than the McGill hospital bribery scandal, in which SNC paid bribes of $22.5 million to secure the contract.

The article is a long one worth reading in full with some interesting videos attached.

Some of Lavalin's other enumerated crimes arguing against offering them a DPA in any country

Quote
It's highly significant that SNC is no stranger to disciplinary action over its conduct. During the 2001-2011 period of the alleged Libyan bribery, the company has:

been barred from bidding on Asian Development Bank projects for fabricating qualifications and documents (2004);

settled corruption allegations with the African Development Bank over bribes in Mozambique (2008) and Uganda (2010);

bribed Canadian officials with $22.5 million in relation to a McGill hospital contract (2009);
https://montrealgazette.com/news/local-news/former-muhc-exec-to-serve-39-months-in-prison-wont-have-to-pay-back-10m-bribe
https://business.financialpost.com/investing/snc-lavalin-sues-former-ceo-for-millions-over-hospital-bribery-scandal

been credibly found by the World Bank as participating in high-level corruption in Bangladesh in 2009-2010, and entered into a voluntary debarment from World Bank-financed projects;
entered into a voluntary agreement to compensate seven Quebec municipalities for obtaining contracts through questionable means (1996-2011);

made illegal federal election campaign donations (2004-2011), entering into a voluntary compliance agreement with the federal elections commissioner
(Edit - $8,000  to the Conservatives  and $110,000 to the Liberals ).  https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/snc-lavalin-violated-elections-act-with-contributions-to-liberals-tories-1.3063412

In other words, from a prosecutor's standpoint, SNC's past history is a serious aggravating factor that militates against lenience.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2019, 17:33:51
The Conservatives and the NDP have the prospect of Admiral Norman's case, various SNC Lavalin cases and motivated Press and Public Prosecutors ahead of them.

And Trudeau having lost his halo and his brain.

Time to heed Napoleon.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: tomahawk6 on March 08, 2019, 17:37:50
Conservative news outlets are all over this story as Trudeau hasn't  any friends on this side of the border. Can he last until the election or will his government fall first ? I suspect the party would want to cast him off if he is unable to last this storm.


https://tinyurl.com/y47eatju
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 08, 2019, 17:39:21
Um...Interrogative...Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

Because they know it will be defeated.  It's better to use the media to keep the light on this scandal.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: BurnDoctor on March 08, 2019, 17:41:12
Because they know it will be defeated.  It's better to use the media to keep the light on this scandal.

Roger.

Hopefully,  the MSM and social media will do just that.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 08, 2019, 17:49:43
More of the same

Quote
SNC-Lavalin loses court bid for special agreement to avoid criminal prosecution
SNC-Lavalin faces legal trouble over allegations it paid millions of dollars in bribes to obtain government business in Libya — a case that has prompted a political storm for the Trudeau Liberals

Quote
OTTAWA — SNC-Lavalin has a lost a court bid to overturn the public prosecutor’s refusal to negotiate an agreement that would see the company avoid a criminal trial.

In a ruling Friday, the Federal Court of Canada tossed out the Montreal-based engineering firm’s plea for judicial review of the 2018 decision by the director of public prosecutions.

SNC-Lavalin faces accusations it paid bribes to obtain government business in Libya — a criminal case that has prompted a political storm for the Trudeau Liberals.

Here’s what a 10-year ban on federal contract bids would mean for SNC-Lavalin
Why Jody Wilson-Raybould likely never pushed prosecutors to settle the case against SNC-Lavalin
Here’s how a new escape route could open up for SNC-Lavalin

The company unsuccessfully pressed the director of prosecutions to negotiate a “remediation agreement,” a legal means of holding an organization to account for wrongdoing without criminal proceedings.

The director told SNC-Lavalin last year that negotiating a remediation agreement would be inappropriate in this case, and the company asked the Federal Court for an order requiring talks.

In her ruling Friday, Federal Court Justice Catherine Kane said prosecutorial decision-making is not subject to judicial review, except for cases where there is an abuse of process.

“The decision at issue — whether to invite an organization to enter into negotiations for a remediation agreement — clearly falls within the ambit of prosecutorial discretion and the nature of decisions that prosecutors are regularly called to make in criminal proceedings,
” she wrote.

In any event, the Federal Court would not have jurisdiction to review such a decision of the director of public prosecutions as the prosecutor’s authority flows from the common law, not a federal statute, Kane added.

SNC-Lavalin finds itself at the centre of a political tempest over allegations prime ministerial aides leaned on former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to help the company avoid prosecution.

Wilson-Raybould told the House of Commons justice committee late last month that she came under relentless pressure from the Prime Minister’s Office and other federal officials to ensure the company was invited to negotiate a remediation agreement.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, have disputed the notion any inappropriate arm-twisting of Wilson-Raybould took place.

Meanwhile, SNC-Lavalin’s court action simmered away in the background.

In its Oct. 19 submission to the Federal Court, the company said while the public prosecutor has discretion to decide whether to open negotiations on a remediation agreement, this discretion “is not unfettered and must be exercised reasonably” under the law.

The company said it provided the prosecutor’s office with information showing the objectives of the remediation provisions were “easily met,” including details of SNC-Lavalin’s efforts to implement a world-class ethics and compliance program, as well as the complete turnover of the company’s senior management and board of directors.

The company also cited the “negative impact of the ongoing uncertainty related to the charges” on its business.

In a Jan. 8 response filed with the court, the director of prosecutions said SNC-Lavalin’s argument is “bereft of any possibility of success and should be struck.”

While SNC-Lavalin has the right to be assumed innocent and to a fair trial, it has “no right or entitlement” under common or criminal law to be invited to negotiate a remediation agreement, the director said.

WRT negative impact on business and employees - the international standard on DPAs from the UK

Quote
In SFO v Rolls Royce, the court flatly discounted the national economic interest, and treated employment concerns as peripheral (para 57):

"The final consideration... is the impact of prosecution on employees and others innocent of any misconduct or what might otherwise be described as the consequences of a conviction. I have no difficulty in accepting... that a criminal conviction against Rolls-Royce would have a very substantial impact on the company...and Rolls-Royce employees... None of these factors is determinative of my decision in relation to this DPA; indeed, the national economic interest is irrelevant...

As I have made clear... a company that commits serious crimes must expect to be prosecuted and if convicted dealt with severely and, absent sufficient countervailing factors, cannot expect to have an application for approval of a DPA accepted." (emphasis added)

In the U.K., job losses on their own are not sufficent to justify a DPA.

There, the great majority of foreign bribery cases proceeded to trial, with only three DPAs being entered into since 2013.

From the National Observer article referenced to David Akin above.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on March 08, 2019, 18:03:00
Especially given the Federal Court’s decision today, the current AG would have to reverse the prior AG’s decision to let the DPP’s early-Sept decision to not pursue a DPA.  I suspect the Govt will stay away from that, but will continue to pursue its second line of pursuit, by PSPC adjusting the Federal acquisition policies to allow SNC to qualify for contracts even if it is found guilty of the bribery charges the RCMP laid (back in 2015 IIRC).

Regards
G2G
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 08, 2019, 18:12:14
SNC is the foot note to the political story, unfortunately.
Edit: unless there is some sort of further political controversy related to it, this one is done.
Trudeau isn't resigning.
Andrew Scheer looks stupid.
JWR and JP are out, new people are in.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jed on March 08, 2019, 20:00:09
I’m not sure I agree with that assessment Cloud Cover. How does Scheer look stupid? From what I see every thinking viewer sees JWR testimony as credible. People will not let this slide.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: DetectiveMcNulty on March 08, 2019, 20:02:47
As if anyone actually thought Justin was going to apologize or resign on his own accord?  :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Technoviking on March 08, 2019, 20:50:12
Interesting story about the PM and his interaction with one of his MPs. (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-liberal-mp-celina-caesar-chavannes-says-she-was-met-with-hostility/) Tangential to the overall story, but still relevant.

And this on International Women's Day
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 08, 2019, 21:14:01
Interesting story about the PM and his interaction with one of his MPs. (https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-liberal-mp-celina-caesar-chavannes-says-she-was-met-with-hostility/) Tangential to the overall story, but still relevant.

And this on International Women's Day

Didn't want two women of colour quitting at the same time. Gotta have that magic women+minority quota. Trudeau is a classy guy.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jed on March 09, 2019, 00:13:38
Probably the wrong thread. Please move as required. I am totally disgusted with CBC to deflect from the most important story of PM / Goverrment nefarious doings and deflect over to crapola about US conspiracy theories, another grand apology by JT, etc. Ridiculous. Any fool can see through this bias. Amazing what 600,000 dollars can buy from Canada’s Pravda.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brihard on March 09, 2019, 02:03:06
Probably the wrong thread. Please move as required. I am totally disgusted with CBC to deflect from the most important story of PM / Goverrment nefarious doings and deflect over to crapola about US conspiracy theories, another grand apology by JT, etc. Ridiculous. Any fool can see through this bias. Amazing what 600,000 dollars can buy from Canada’s Pravda.

The news cycle is fast, and little has shaken loose in the past couple days to refresh the issue. Scheer went off half cocked with shrill calls for PMJT’s resignation rather than finding procedures and processes by which the matter could be stretched out; it was frankly amateurish.

We have more testimony likely to come, and with that will come more coverage. Until then, the news needs fresh media to feed on.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 09, 2019, 07:43:16
In case you're interested, here's Friday's Federal Court decision (with a one-page summary downloadable @ a later post here (https://army.ca/forums/index.php/topic,129826.msg1564342.html#msg1564342)) ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 09, 2019, 09:06:34
The news cycle is fast, and little has shaken loose in the past couple days to refresh the issue. Scheer went off half cocked with shrill calls for PMJT’s resignation rather than finding procedures and processes by which the matter could be stretched out; it was frankly amateurish.


Agree with you 100%. Super amateurish of him. It's like he has no idea with the gold egg laying hen he just had dumped into his lap. The shrill "you have to resign" calls are common place for frankly almost every issue that arises. He sucks.

Im hoping the PM's newer newist problem of the black female PM quitting, and the story of her hostile interaction with him fan the flames along. Maybe even open the doors up for others to come forward. Trudeau sounds like a control freak that doesn't like women disobeying him.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 09, 2019, 09:40:04
Trudeau sounds like a control freak that doesn't like women disobeying him.

Well, the apple never falls far from the tree!

How can the son of a womanizer like Trudeau senior, whose mother was no feminist (more like a free spirit that was right at home on the Gulf Islands - I dated such a free spirit for a while in my younger days: most freakishly difficult relationship to keep up  :nod:) become feminist, other than as a rebellious stand against parental authority? That doesn't make him a real feminist, but someone who learns to wrap himself in the cloak to aggravate parents - or people, IMHO.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 09, 2019, 09:46:23
Trudeau sounds like a control freak that doesn't like women anybody disobeying him.

FTFY.

Sadly, as soon as the pre-election budget is released, followed closely by Minster Blair's recommendations for gun bans, the new AG will direct the SNC DPA to be issued, citing highly publicized "revised legal opinions".  The nails will be driven into the coffin of JWR's error in judgement and then the Liberals will be polling back in majority territory.  If the PM was smart, that's when he'd call an early snap election before something else went wrong for Team Red.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Oldgateboatdriver on March 09, 2019, 10:02:17
Haggis:

Are you suggesting that Trudeau could win one more election at this stage by (1) giving lots of candy in a pre-electoral budget, then (2) doing something that is very unpopular in the West, and possibly in good part of Ontario (giving a bribe ridden corporation from Quebec a goody in the form of a DPA) and then (3) breaking publicly yet another law for no good reason (calling a snap election outside the date called for by the fixed date election law without valid crisis to warrant it)?

I am far from convinced.

BTW, I have worked in the past with the department of justice lawyers and can tell you a couple of things. First, the DOJ does not get outside legal opinions. It has all the expert lawyers it needs in house to provide legal advice to the government. I am not talking about the public prosecution services here, but the actual DOJ lawyers. Second,the DOJ has  expert lawyers in criminal law that the DPPS and the Attorney-General probably consulted with before making their decision on a DPA. These lawyers, again, are not prosecutors but world beating experts on criminal law matters who are there to advise on the drafting and application of any such law. Again here, they don't take outside advice on their area of expertise.
 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 09, 2019, 10:07:57
100%- except for an injunction, there's no way to prevent a snap election if the GG approves it. It's unlikely the GG would not and the government would then be in a tough position. *

The PPS is generally an in house org, but with about 450 extra hired gun "agents" for specialist niche prosecutions or drug court prosecutions. The DoJ generally only hires external counsel for opinions for advice about the laws of another country, or where for some rare circumstance they are in a conflict of interest. ( ie the Minister and minions are accused or under investigation and require counsel themselves for legal actions they've initiated or advised on). Very rare, but some ( certainly not all) law suits for malicious prosecution  come to mind.

Government agencies, like CBC, NEB etc, have in house counsel but routinely hire external counsel.

*Wikipedia

"When introducing the legislation, Harper stated that "fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."[7] However, despite the amendments to the legislation, the prime minister is still free to request an election at any time. As the Bill C-16 amendments to the Canada Elections Act clearly state "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion", the change effectively altered only the maximum duration of a parliament by ensuring that it ends no later than October of the fourth calendar year after its commencement, while leaving the possibility of an earlier end unaffected.[4]

This situation was illustrated by the dissolution of parliament at PM Harper's request on September 7, 2008. This led Democracy Watch to initiate proceedings in federal court against the Crown-in-Council, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Governor General of Canada, challenging the decision to call an election prior to the fixed election date. Judge Michel M.J. Shore dismissed the matter, saying the applicants who launched the suit "do not demonstrate a proper understanding of the separation of powers," since "[t]he remedy for the applicant's contention is not for the Federal Court to decide, but rather one of the count of the ballot box".[8] The court effectively found that the fixed election dates were not binding on the prime minister or legally enforceable by the courts."
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 09, 2019, 10:14:49
Haggis:

Are you suggesting that Trudeau could win one more election at this stage by (1) giving lots of candy in a pre-electoral budget, then (2) doing something that is very unpopular in the West, and possibly in good part of Ontario (giving a bribe ridden corporation from Quebec a goody in the form of a DPA) and then (3) breaking publicly yet another law for no good reason (calling a snap election outside the date called for by the fixed date election law without valid crisis to warrant it)?

Are you saying that anything postulated above is beyond the realm of possibility given current events?

Remember, the PMO, the PCO and the new AG believe that obtaining outside legal advice is completely acceptable and, in fact, desirable if that will result in the intended outcome of a DPA.  Why else would they have recommended it to JWR?
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Good2Golf on March 09, 2019, 11:57:14
In case you're interested, here's Friday's Federal Court decision ...

An excellent read.  Thanks for the link, Milnews.

G2G
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Chris Pook on March 09, 2019, 12:01:02
An ancillary concern of mine is the possibility of the reputation of the Supreme Court being tarnished by the actions of retired judges. 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 09, 2019, 13:39:38
An excellent read.  Thanks for the link, Milnews.

G2G
Not a problem - happy to feed the debate stew.

In fact, for those interested in the Readers Digest verison, here's the official one-page Federal Court summary of the decision.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: ModlrMike on March 09, 2019, 19:45:38
Looks like Ms Copps is doubling down:

Twitter (https://twitter.com/manny_ottawa/status/1104388287077048320?fbclid=IwAR0HFGhIVeLkKxP4hNVzsUv5h78fEKuEwCDTODZ3_fRnwtzV83-naE5j3g0)

Twitter (https://twitter.com/Sheila_Copps?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor)

I sense she's not coming across very well.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 09, 2019, 21:00:05
Looks like Ms Copps is doubling down:

Twitter (https://twitter.com/manny_ottawa/status/1104388287077048320?fbclid=IwAR0HFGhIVeLkKxP4hNVzsUv5h78fEKuEwCDTODZ3_fRnwtzV83-naE5j3g0)

Twitter (https://twitter.com/Sheila_Copps?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor)

I sense she's not coming across very well.
Some highlights :)
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 09, 2019, 21:03:27
From what I've read "9000" jobs aren't at stake if snc gets barred from federal contracts.
There is still a ton of provincial contracts they can bid on that are big money.
They are still involved in federal and provincial projects that won't be completed for a few years.
They're still involved in contract negotiations for a bunch of contracts.

The 9000 jobs lost is a bullshit a statement as all their anti-gun crap.

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Target Up on March 09, 2019, 22:23:18
Some highlights :)

I'd be willing to bet the energy sector in Alberta (used to) employ(s) more FN people than SNC does.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 09, 2019, 23:11:53
The 9000 jobs lost is a bullshit a statement as all their anti-gun crap.

Gerald Butts was pressed by the Justice Committee to back up the 9,000 jobs at risk claim.  He could not.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Brad Sallows on March 10, 2019, 00:16:49
That's one of the points that leads me to conclude those people are utterly devoid of any sense of what they sound like.  A whole industry can be left to fend for itself in the gusts of the global economy and hurricanes of domestic provincial politics, but let one company important to the LPC sniffle...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 10, 2019, 08:06:00
Not a problem - happy to feed the debate stew.

In fact, for those interested in the Readers Digest verison, here's the official one-page Federal Court summary of the decision.
So, next speculative tea-leaf reading to throw out there:  is SNC-Lavalin going to take this to the next court level? 

According to the Federal Court's info-machine (http://www.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc_cf_en/Courts_System.html), next stop would be Federal Court of Appeal.

:pop:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Jarnhamar on March 10, 2019, 09:40:01
Gerald Butts was pressed by the Justice Committee to back up the 9,000 jobs at risk claim.  He could not.

I'm not surprised. Damage is done though with everyone believing and repeating that figure.


SNC's quite the company.

Quote
OTTAWA — New details have emerged about Quebec engineering giant SNC-Lavalin’s cozy relationship with the son of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, including the company allegedly hiring prostitutes for him during a visit to Canada a decade ago

Quote
Receipts gathered during an investigation of a former SNC-Lavalin executive show $30,000 in payments to Saadi Gadhafi for sexual services in Canada in 2008, La Presse reported. The documentation can now be revealed publicly because the prosecution of Stéphane Roy, former vice-president of SNC-Lavalin, on fraud and bribery charges was dropped last week due to court delays.

In 2008, Gadhafi was ostensibly travelling to Montreal and Toronto to conduct business and improve his English, at the invitation of SNC-Lavalin. He had helped the company secure billions in public contracts in Libya — thanks also to millions in bribes to Libyan officials, the RCMP has alleged — and visited Canada on three previous occasions. But he spent much of his time on other extracurricular pursuits, according to La Presse’s reporting.
Quote
The bodyguards handled Gadhafi’s expenses and provided receipts to SNC-Lavalin, according to court testimony by an RCMP investigator. Transactions they wrote in as “companion services” in their expense reports would cost between $600 and $7,500 each. Close to $10,000 in services went to a single escort service in Vancouver. Other payments went to a Montreal strip club and covered events at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, such as box seats for a Spice Girls concert.
The investigation showed that SNC-Lavalin was writing off the expenses as associated with construction projects in Libya, La Presse reported, with the total bill for Gadhafi’s trip totalling nearly $2 million.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/snc-lavalin-paid-for-gadhafi-sons-debauchery-while-he-was-in-canada-report


Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 10, 2019, 10:36:17
I'm not surprised. Damage is done though with everyone believing and repeating that figure.

Just like the Liberal's oft repeated and thoroughly debunked claim that "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced".

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 10, 2019, 12:54:48
From what I've read "9000" jobs aren't at stake if snc gets barred from federal contracts.
There is still a ton of provincial contracts they can bid on that are big money.
They are still involved in federal and provincial projects that won't be completed for a few years.
They're still involved in contract negotiations for a bunch of contracts.

The 9000 jobs lost is a bullshit a statement as all their anti-gun crap.

Construction workers change employers all the time. They go where the work is.
If SNC is unable to bid on government contracts, other Canadian companies will win and fulfill the contracts.
The only SNC job losses will be in the HQ building in Montreal. The real workers aren't lost jobs either, they'll just go where the money is.

Canadian construction is a bucket of water. If you take out a cup of SNC participation, it doesn't leave a hole.

The 9,000 job losses is a lame duck to distract from the issue. It's a false narrative. Fake news, so to speak.

As for angry Shiela, she making it abundantly clear why she's no longer sitting in government.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on March 10, 2019, 12:58:32
There is corruption everywhere. Taking home the pens from work is stealing from your employer. Minor in nature though. The question is “what level of corruption are we going to tolerate?”

And I won’t say what I think of Shrill Sheila....
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Bruce Monkhouse on March 10, 2019, 14:12:09
I think her tweet has to be the lowest thing I've ever read in Canadian politics....
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Hamish Seggie on March 10, 2019, 14:54:02
I think her tweet has to be the lowest thing I've ever read in Canadian politics....

Remember “I’m entitled to my entitlements”. Things haven’t changed.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 10, 2019, 17:12:12
I think her tweet has to be the lowest thing I've ever read in Canadian politics....

......so far.  We're still months from the next election.  It'll get lower.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: RomeoJuliet on March 10, 2019, 19:48:14
Just like the Liberal's oft repeated and thoroughly debunked claim that "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced".

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
Comparing this to Goebbels is a bit much. #stopthehype



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Haggis on March 10, 2019, 22:16:48
Comparing this to Goebbels is a bit much. #stopthehype

Taking just one lie (gun stats) in isolation, maybe.  But, like the music of the 80's "the hits just keep on comin'!" from the Liberal propaganda machine.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Rifleman62 on March 10, 2019, 22:26:24
https://twitter.com/sdbcraig/status/1104519047511769088

Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Colin P on March 10, 2019, 23:04:56
Apparently someone posted it without filling in the blanks.....

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10157203727693945&set=a.94018163944&type=3&eid=ARANwrfGqXSvEcKfDRZWfdYbgLSOSYvzkVjNYGe3PgLT-vq_PhsXd9ZxY-frhG470rODaVpOYIiF3CYE
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Cloud Cover on March 10, 2019, 23:17:27
All hail the Vomitarium.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Remius on March 11, 2019, 10:28:18
My guess is that they sent out the talking points they wanted them to say.  They probably said, make into your own words but cover all these points.

I blame the state of our educational system where people can't write or come up with a different way of saying something.

They really are not helping themselves...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 11, 2019, 10:35:08
... I blame the state of our educational system where people can't write or come up with a different way of saying something ...
When someone in this situation gets "messaging," "key points," "talking points," or the like from whoever's above them (no matter what party is in power), I suspect that more than 8 times out of 10, the end user doesn't have any discretion.  Hence the term "message control."
They really are not helping themselves...
:nod:
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Colin P on March 11, 2019, 14:04:21
My guess is that they sent out the talking points they wanted them to say.  They probably said, make into your own words but cover all these points.

I blame the state of our educational system where people can't write or come up with a different way of saying something.

They really are not helping themselves...

No I think it's the same level of "message control" that the CPC started.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 11, 2019, 14:31:23
No I think it's the same level of "message control" that the CPC started.
And, to be fair, also exerted by Team Orange during at least one federal election campaign even if they weren't in power.
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 11, 2019, 14:56:39
This could get interesting. Possibly out of the control of the PMO. This appears to be, no longer, a Canadian problem to hide. CBC, Global and CTV may have to compete their pro trudeau spin against international news agencies that don't receive liberal bribes.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/oecd-announces-it-is-monitoring-snc-lavalin-scandal-raising-prospect-canada-has-violated-international-anti-bribery-agreement


Quote
OECD announces it is monitoring SNC-Lavalin scandal, raising prospect Canada has violated international anti-bribery agreement
'The OECD Working Group on Bribery... notes that the Canadian authorities stress that they are transparent and independent'

March 11, 2019
1:39 PM EDT
Filed under

    Canadian Politics


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.

I'd love nothing better than to see an international full court press against this government.

 
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: milnews.ca on March 11, 2019, 17:45:36
... CBC, Global and CTV may have to compete their pro trudeau spin against international news agencies that don't receive liberal bribes.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/oecd-announces-it-is-monitoring-snc-lavalin-scandal-raising-prospect-canada-has-violated-international-anti-bribery-agreement
But you're linking to another potentially #BoughtMedia outlet here - who's left to believe, then?  :)

Carrying that bit further, this from the OECD info-machine (http://www.oecd.org/canada/oecd-will-follow-canadian-proceedings-addressing-allegations-of-political-interference-in-foreign-bribery-prosecution.htm) (also attached if link doesn't work for you) ...
Quote
OECD will follow Canadian proceedings addressing allegations of political interference in foreign bribery prosecution

11/03/2019 - The OECD Working Group on Bribery is concerned by recent allegations of interference in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin that are subject to proceedings in the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. The Canadian engineering and construction group is the subject of an ongoing prosecution into allegations of the bribery of Libyan officials to obtain a Can$ 58-million contract to restore a water pipeline. 

As a Party to the Anti-Bribery Convention, Canada is fully committed to complying with the Convention, which requires prosecutorial independence in foreign bribery cases pursuant to Article 5. 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.

In February 2019, two procedures were swiftly launched in Canada to respond to the allegations of political pressure. The Federal Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commission opened an investigation into potential violation of Canada’s Conflict of Interest Act, and the Parliamentary Commons Justice Committee initiated a Parliamentary inquiry. The OECD Working Group on Bribery is encouraged by these processes, and notes that the Canadian authorities stress that they are transparent and independent. The Working Group recognises Canada’s willingness to keep it fully informed of developments in the proceedings, including at its next meeting in June 2019.

The OECD Working Group, which brings together the 44 Parties to the Anti-Bribery Convention, will closely monitor Canada’s updates, and has also sent a letter to the Canadian authorities confirming its concerns and next steps in this matter ...
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Fishbone Jones on March 11, 2019, 23:23:32
But you're linking to another potentially #BoughtMedia outlet here - who's left to believe, then?  :)


Ahhh, mea culpa  :facepalm: Just when I thought...........
 ;D
Title: Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
Post by: Loachman on March 12, 2019, 09:22:19
Not a lot of time to keep up on this for the last few days, so I'm catching up a little.

I've left out some good articles, but they had become quickly outdated or had been superceded.

I've noticed some more Liberal-positive articles lately, but cannot say that this is a trend or not as I am only able to look at a small selection of the total number. I still see no indication of a "bought" media. Digging is still occurring, and all sides seem to be getting aired.

More Liberal "apologists" seem to be appearing/re-appearing in comments sections. I do not normally read comment sections, but have skimmed through those on some articles to try and gauge general opinions and trends.

I do not see any reason for the Liberals to attempt a snap election as at least one person has suggested in one of the (now three) threads in here that have been discussing this issue. They would have been slammed early on, and I think that they are more likely to hope that this will blow over or that they can patch it up. That may happen, but, over a month later, it is still bubbling away and more will likely come out that could cause further damage - especially if a public inquiry begins or the RCMP begin interviewing key people or other MPs or staffmembers quit or turn.

Should they ask the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament, it will, of course, be her decision and I cannot help but think that she would be reminded of that more than once.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/the-2-minute-crisis-fix-for-trudeau-youre-welcome/

The 2 minute crisis fix for Trudeau. You're welcome.

Jason Lietaer: The PM gave his opponents a gift today when he could easily have turned the page on the SNC-Lavalin crisis. Here's what he should have done.

by Jason Lietaer

Mar 7, 2019

A month into the biggest crisis the government has faced, the Prime Minister called the scribes to the National Press Theatre to finally put an end to the debacle.

He'd lost two high-ranking female cabinet ministers who said they'd lost confidence. He'd lost his best friend and closest advisor from his office. He was minutes away from being challenged on Twitter by another one of his female MPs, Celina Caesar-Chavannes. "I did come to you recently. Twice. Remember your reactions?"

You knew it was important because they did it before breakfast.

He had cancelled all of his appointments the afternoon before. He had huddled with the respected ambassador to the U.S. to help him turn this thing around. He had had four weeks to think about what he was going to say. He's a master at emotionally connecting with an audience. He was finally going to get it right.

It didn't turn out so hot.

When you're struggling with a big decision in politics, one of the things you should always ask yourself is: "What do my opponents want me to do?" Then you do the opposite.

<snip>

Luckily for his opponents, Trudeau didn't do the smart thing. He looked around after a month of taking on water and thought to himself: "more of the same."

<snip>

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-why-fight-criminal-charges-in-court-when-you-can-lobby?video_autoplay=true

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

SNC-Lavalin chose to fight the charges in government, rather than court. They did so, we may conclude, because they were given reason to believe it would work

Andrew Coyne   

March 8, 2019 8:02 PM EST

At last the Liberal government has that outside legal opinion it was seeking. A federal court judge has ruled the director of public prosecutions' decision to bring SNC-Lavalin to trial on charges of fraud and corruption, rather than to negotiate a "remediation agreement" as the company preferred, was a proper exercise of her prosecutorial discretion.

By extension she has endorsed the former attorney general's refusal to overrule that decision. For the flipside of prosecutorial discretion is prosecutorial independence, hallowed by centuries of common law and, as the judge wrote, "essential and fundamental to the criminal justice system."

<snip>

The impression left is of a mass swarming of the attorney general's office and that of the PPSC. If so it would mirror SNC-Lavalin's swarming of the upper reaches of government. We have heard much, again, of the many visits by lobbyists to various ministers and other officials, all of them recorded in the lobbyist registry. We are only lately hearing about rather more direct, and unregistered interventions.

One is an extraordinary phone call from the chairman of SNC-Lavalin, Kevin Lynch, to the clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, on Oct. 15. The phone call was extraordinary in two respects. One, Lynch is a former clerk himself, hired as chairman in 2017, by which time the company's assault on Ottawa was well under way. Two, Wernick, by his own account, had to explain to the former clerk that "he would have to go through the attorney general and the director of public prosecutions through his counsel."

Then there is the letter from the company president, Neil Bruce, to the prime minister, dated the same day, complaining of the company's inability to make the prosecutor see things their way. Why, she had even declined to meet with the former Supreme Court judge, Frank Iacobucci, whom the company had retained as counsel, the man Wernick pointedly described to Wilson-Raybould as "no shrinking violet."It says a great deal that the company's response to being charged with serious crimes was not to fight the charges in court, but to fight them in government: to lobby the politicians, to attempt to intimidate the prosecutors, to arrange calls between old civil service chums. They did so, it is logical to conclude, because they thought it would work - because they were given reason to believe it would work.

https://www.straight.com/news/1211841/lets-not-kid-ourselves-justin-trudeau-has-been-mp-snc-lavalin-very-long-time

Let's not kid ourselves - Justin Trudeau has been the MP for SNC-Lavalin for a very long time

by Charlie Smith on March 9th, 2019 at 8:20 AM

<snip>

Then there's the Trudeau government's support for pipelines, including Enbridge's Line 3, which will likely open this year.

The Trudeau government also bought the aging Trans Mountain system from Kinder Morgan for $4.5 billion. An expansion will gobble up another $9.3 billion to triple shipments of diluted bitumen from Alberta to the B.C. coast.

I repeat: a quarter of SNC-Lavalin's revenues come from oil and gas.

So when the aging Trans Mountain infrastructure needs upgrading, there's a good chance for more revenue for SNC-Lavalin.

But a criminal conviction would get in the way because it would be barred from bidding on federal projects - and the Trans Mountain pipeline system, right now, is federally owned.

<snip>

The national media have been big cheerleaders of the pipeline purchase.

These newspaper and broadcasting companies have also collected a whopping amount of advertising revenue from supporters of the Trans Mountain pipeline project and the Trudeau government.

Yet now, like Capt. Renault in Casablanca, they're blowing the whistle on Trudeau's dealings with SNC-Lavalin in connection with its court case.

They're shocked, just shocked, by the lengths to which the prime minister would go to assist the corporation.

The only thing missing from this movie is a dewy-eyed Ingrid Bergman.

(Lengthy, as the author admits in his second paragraph, and bitingly critical - Loachman):

https://www.straight.com/news/1212021/martyn-brown-another-sad-week-court-crimson-king-courtesy-justin-trudeau-and-his

Martyn Brown: Another sad week in the Court of the Crimson King, courtesy of Justin Trudeau and his Liberal lickspittles

by Martyn Brown on March 10th, 2019 at 4:28 AM

What another sad week it has been in the Court of the Crimson King in response to the SNC-Lavalin scandal, courtesy of Justin Trudeau and his Liberal lickspittles on the Commons justice committee.

The whole spectacle is as insufferable as a prog rock concert and as hellish as the cover image on King Crimson's signature long-player from 1969. (A genre that inspired this excruciatingly long tome, offered as ever in self-indulgence. Feel free to jump to the concluding section "In search of a remediation agreement" at any time.)

Indeed, I can think of no better soundtrack for the upcoming election campaign than In the Court of the Crimson King.

From one groove to the next, #LavScam is likewise a chaotic mess - too ridiculous to fathom, too appalling to ignore, and too atrocious to abide.

<snip>

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/grenier-snc-lavalin-trudeau-polls-1.5048419

Liberals have taken a polling hit over SNC Lavalin - but Trudeau's taken a bigger one

The prime minister's personal polling numbers aren't recovering, but the Liberal Party's numbers might be

Éric Grenier Posted: Mar 09, 2019 4:00 AM ET


<snip>

The CBC Poll Tracker, an aggregation of all publicly available polls, has recorded a slip of over four points for the Liberals over the last month, putting the party behind the Conservatives for the first time in nearly a year.

But the losses suffered by the party are less significant than those suffered by Trudeau himself on questions relating to his own personal brand, the performance of his government and Canadians' preferences for prime minister.

<snip>

https://globalnews.ca/news/5035881/justin-trudeau-snc-lavalin-michael-wernick-crisis/

After failing to change the channel on SNC-Lavalin, Trudeau could try firing Wernick: crisis expert

By Amanda Connolly National Online Journalist Global News   

Everything Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has done to try changing the channel on the SNC-Lavalin affair has failed, one crisis communications expert says.

So he could try firing Privy Council Clerk Michael Wernick.

In an interview with the West Block‘s Mercedes Stephenson, Mike Van Soelen, a managing principal at the crisis communications firm Navigator, said Trudeau failed last week to take clear action when confronted with unanswered questions about the accusations of attempted political interference made in what he described as "credible" testimony by former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould.

<snip>

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/does-justin-trudeau-know-what-hes-doing/

Does Justin Trudeau know what he's doing?

Stephen Maher: The SNC-Lavalin affair raises more corrosive questions about the Prime Minister's competence than his ethics

by Stephen Maher

Mar 11, 2019

<snip>

It is possible that Trudeau and his people let their thinking be swayed by powerful lobbyists, that they didn't realize what they were doing was wrong because they failed to understand the law. But Trudeau chose his clerk, and the other senior aides who badgered Wilson-Raybould and ignored her when she tried to warn them off.

Their errors are his errors, and his inept management of the political fallout—his refusal to admit that his people were wrong—raises a nasty question: Does he know what he is doing?

One of the Prime Minister's biggest challenges as he spends this week in Florida, plotting his comeback, is how he is going to get things done in a town where everyone is wondering that.

The departure of Jane Philpott, who gave up her seat at the cabinet table because she no longer had confidence in the way Trudeau handled this matter, is especially disquieting, because she is held in such high regard. Philpott, who spent a decade doing admirable medical work in Niger, won praise from Indigenous leaders for her no-nonsense approach to improving service delivery, and from opposition politicians, bureaucrats and journalists.

She worked closely with Trudeau for years and no longer has faith in him.

And the Prime Minister seems to have lost his sangfroid. He lost his cool with Celina Caesar-Chavannes, the MP for Whitby and his former parliamentary secretary. She says that when she called him to tell him she had decided not to run again, he accused her of disloyalty, asked her to delay her announcement and lost his temper on their next meetin