Author Topic: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case  (Read 81914 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Rifleman62

    Retired.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 98,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,156
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #925 on: April 11, 2019, 14:53:09 »
Fishbone Jones:
Quote
On a separate note, as I have no other way to contact The Head.....

Send him a PM. He answered before and we had a couple of conversations.

Never Congratulate Yourself In Victory, Nor Blame Your Horses In Defeat - Old Cossack Expression

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 556,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,191
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #926 on: April 11, 2019, 15:26:52 »
Quote
Arrogance. Plain and simple.
That and an overwhelming desire to kill Canada.
I completely agree with the highlighted part.
What about the second part?   :pop:

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 556,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,191
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #927 on: April 11, 2019, 15:28:14 »
Fishbone Jones:
Send him a PM. He answered before and we had a couple of conversations.
Apparently a PM will not go through to someone who has you on IGNORE.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #928 on: April 11, 2019, 15:57:39 »
Yes... yes I can. Such as:
1. The Canada Child Benefit;
2. Lowered taxes for middle class;
3. Reinstated the long-form census (this one resonated particularly with me);
4. Revitalized federal ocean science programs by hiring 135 new aquatic scientists for new reasearch;
5. Returned OAS eligibility to 65 (I'm personally not for this one, but I'm not going to say this one was a mistake, but simply choosing someone else's priorities over my own);
6. Launched National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls Inquiry (which has been a gong show no doubt, but the intention is nothing but good);
7. Legalized medical assistance in dying;
8. Senate-appointment reform;
9. Re-opened numerous veterans affairs offices;
10. Signed Paris Climate Change Agreement;
11. Increased Canada Student Grants;
12. Bill C-59 (National Security Act);
13. Bill C-68 (Fisheries Act);
14. Bill C-45 (Cannabis Act).

There's lots of good the LPC has done for Canada.

Is there lots of bad? Sure.

Is there more bad than good... I think that's more a matter of preference and opinion than it is a matter of facts, but then I also acknowledge that the veracity of this very statement is also matter of opinion as well...so...

But you didn't ask for a comparison, you asked if he'd done ANYTHING good, and well, there you are.

I leave the other point for people better versed to respond to.

3. Not everyone agrees
6. Has been political theatre that fell off the rails and for the most part has drowned
13.  I have been involved in this one  (CNWA) and I have major concerns about what all theses Acts promise and the inability of government to create the infrastructure to run them. I also expect they will have a significant damping effect on larger projects in the West, causing an economic downturn. while the CPC swung the pendulum to far one way, this swings them to far the other and if they receive Royal Assent in June-july and then the CPC wins, they will make amendments to reduce the damage early on. Needless to say I pity my former colleagues that will have to live that regulatory nightmare and for the people 30 years from now trying to figure out WTF was going on.
10. yes the world is safer now that Canada has been brought to heel....
14.  Really this was public demand and they just jumped on the bandwagon, I give more credit to the people who did the hardwork to get it there. I give the Libs credit in realizing it was a easy win for them.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #929 on: April 11, 2019, 16:01:44 »
So the Speaker ruled that he has no jurisdiction to rule on Jane Philpott’s claim. The argument is that Liberals never opted into the 2015 changes to the Act, but i don't see anything that gives the right to "Opt out" https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-1/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/speaker-shuts-down-philpott-s-claim-that-pm-contravened-law-with-caucus-expulsions-1.4375510?fbclid=IwAR1pDnjxyODePcHXZ53BoNcYWVIZN-vTJwgzLSuyrS4qh70YtUX5kkK4Two

Offline MilEME09

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 37,695
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,643
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #930 on: April 11, 2019, 16:44:37 »
So who does have jurisdiction?
"We are called a Battalion, Authorized to be company strength, parade as a platoon, Operating as a section"

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,198
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #931 on: April 11, 2019, 17:26:18 »
There does appear to be a sense of dereliction of duty, if not outright abdication from it in this one. One would think the Minister for Democratic Institutions would have accountability to ensure creatures of Parliament conform and comply with the letter and spirit of the Parliament of Canada Act, but nowhere is that written.
Edit: https://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-democratic-institutions-mandate-letter
« Last Edit: April 11, 2019, 17:30:16 by Cloud Cover »
Living the lean life

Offline Furniture

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 28,802
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 424
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #932 on: April 11, 2019, 18:28:36 »
What about the second part?   :pop:

I disagree, but wasn't looking to start an argument.

I don't think any major political party, or politician within them truly wants to do harm to Canada. I just think their opinion of what is good, and best for Canada differs from mine from time to time.




Not the reply you expected, was it?

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #933 on: April 11, 2019, 19:03:32 »
So this is the section that determines whether the party is subject to the vote, the next question is: Did they vote on this and record that as such?

49.8 (1) At its first meeting following a general election, the caucus of every party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:

(a) whether sections 49.2 and 49.3 are to apply in respect of the caucus;

(b) whether section 49.4 is to apply in respect of the caucus;

(c) whether subsections 49.5(1) to (3) are to apply in respect of the caucus; and

(d) whether subsection 49.5(4) and section 49.6 are to apply in respect of the caucus.

Offline Retired AF Guy

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 50,750
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,736
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #934 on: April 11, 2019, 19:40:40 »
So the Speaker ruled that he has no jurisdiction to rule on Jane Philpott’s claim. The argument is that Liberals never opted into the 2015 changes to the Act, but i don't see anything that gives the right to "Opt out" https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/p-1/

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/speaker-shuts-down-philpott-s-claim-that-pm-contravened-law-with-caucus-expulsions-1.4375510?fbclid=IwAR1pDnjxyODePcHXZ53BoNcYWVIZN-vTJwgzLSuyrS4qh70YtUX5kkK4Two

Attached is the Speakers ruling on Jane Philipott alegations.
"Leave one wolf alive, and the sheep are never safe."

Arya Stark

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #935 on: April 11, 2019, 20:10:33 »
thanks

I wonder if said letter is subject to a FOIA?

members of the Liberal caucus were prevented from
voting on the rules for this decision pursuant to section 49.8 of the
Parliament of Canada Act . She stated explicitly that, in this case, the matter
of privilege is very much about knowing which rules apply for expulsion or
readmission; it is not about a possible caucus expulsion as was the issue
addressed in my ruling on April 8, 2019. In her view, although the Chair
has no role in the interpretation of statutes, it does not relieve the Speaker
of the responsibility to ensure that all members are aware of their rights in
this House.
In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House
Leader informed the House that the Chair of the National Liberal Caucus
had indeed sent the requisite letter to the Speaker, specifying that the
provisions of the Act regarding the expulsion and readmission of caucus
members would not apply for the 42nd Parliament



Because the Act is explicit in the need for a vote.
49.8 (1) At its first meeting following a general election, the caucus of every party that has a recognized membership of 12 or more persons in the House of Commons shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #936 on: April 11, 2019, 20:42:53 »
You can request pretty much anything under an FOIA.  Whether you'll actually get it is another story.

If you wait a few days and check what requests have been filed recently, you may find a reporter has already done the work for you, and can just ask for a copy of the same response.

They'll probably black it all out (aside from the header and signature block) and claim cabinet confidence or similar, but would be pretty hard for them to argue there was no record of the letter.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,470
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #937 on: April 11, 2019, 21:48:22 »
FOIA is an American thing. 

In Canada it is ATIP.
Optio

Online FJAG

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 204,145
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,420
  • Ex Gladio Justicia
    • Google Sites Wolf Riedel
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #938 on: April 11, 2019, 22:16:27 »
FOIA is an American thing. 

In Canada it is ATIP.

It's a bit confusing because in most provinces its "Freedom of Information" as most provincial statutes (but not all) are called "Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act"

 :cheers:
Illegitimi non carborundum
Semper debeatis percutis ictu primo
Access my "Allies" and "Mark Winters, CID" book series at:
https://sites.google.com/view/wolfriedel
Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/WolfRiedelAuthor/

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #939 on: April 11, 2019, 23:46:11 »
Fishbone Jones:
Send him a PM. He answered before and we had a couple of conversations.
Why? I got nothing to hide. I dont lurk and snipe. Lurkers are like their popcorn. Dry and stale and full of air.

Besides, the ignore function is wonderful.
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #940 on: April 11, 2019, 23:47:58 »
I appreciate the thoughtful way you have dealt with what is a subtle drive by hit.

You're welcome
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,736
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #941 on: April 12, 2019, 01:55:12 »
So a bit of a catch up and summary, as best as I can tell, on this latest branch of the ongoing SNC drama:

In 2013, Michael Chong introduced the Reform Act. It passed in the summer of 2015, and amended the Parliament of Canada Act. It included a provision (S.49.2 of said act) to the effect that to expel a member, a caucus chair must receive requests from 20% of the caucus that a member's membership be reviewed, with a 50%+ secret ballot vote to pull the trigger on an expulsion. This is the provision underlying Philpott's complaint that she may have been illegally kicked out of caucus.

But... Chong's law was somewhat toothless in that it left it to each caucus to independently decide if that particular provision (and a few others) applied. After the previous election, each party caucus was to vote on this matter, per S.49.8 of the Act as amended by Chong's bill. The Liberals say they did, and elected not to invoke it. I'm not surprised- the party leadership would not want to hamstring themselves, and the affairs of caucus are quite rightly their own business. They would resist imposition, however well intended, by the broader parliament in how they run their show. I don't know that any party actually voted to apply this section?

So, if the Liberal party caucus voted on this and elected not to impose that section of the Reform Act upon themselves, then they are not bound by it, and then there is no breaking of the law in the party leader expelling someone from caucus unilaterally.The LPC claim that they did vote to this effect after the election, and I don't really see a matter to doubt that- it would be extremely easy to disprove such a claim, and of course both Parliamentarians affected would have been privy to said vote and would no doubt quickly cry foul were that to be lied about. I note that JWR, a lawyer herself, has not spoken up about being illegitimately removed- and she was quite clear that her intent was to remain a liberal. If she had that tool in her toolbox, I have no doubt she would use it.

So, all said and done, it looks like everything that was done was, at least, legal.

Philpott's complaint went to the Speaker of the house of Commons. The speaker quite rightly found that he has no jurisdiction over the interpretation or application of law. That's appropriate, and correct. It would have been the height of irony had he stepped outside of his roles both legal and conventional to make a finding otherwise on this matter.

All hysterics notwithstanding, it appears this remains a matter to be dealt with by the voters, and not the police or courts. And if any credit is to be given to opinion polling whatsoever, it's damned clear that the voters very much intend to show their opinion of this, and that it will not be to the LPC's favour.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 423,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,169
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #942 on: April 12, 2019, 06:45:32 »
... if the Liberal party caucus voted on this and elected not to impose that section of the Reform Act upon themselves, then they are not bound by it, and then there is no breaking of the law in the party leader expelling someone from caucus unilaterally ...
Unless someone's read something different I haven't seen (more than likely, given the speed of events unfolding), that's still an IF if we believe what The Canadian Press wrote:
Quote
... Those votes never occurred in the Liberal caucus following Trudeau's victory in 2015. Rather, the newly elected MPs — presumably including Philpott and Wilson-Raybould — voted unanimously to defer the matter to the Liberal party's next convention. Chong's reforms were never discussed at two subsequent Liberal conventions ...
We know from the Speaker's decision that ...
Quote
... the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader informed the House that the Chair of the National Liberal Caucus had indeed sent the requisite letter to the Speaker, specifying that the provisions of the Act regarding the expulsion and readmission of caucus members would not apply for the 42nd Parliament. This, in his view, makes this question of privilege moot and removes any confusion as to which rules apply. Furthermore, he argued that it is not the role of the Speaker to adjudicate such matters ... It is the caucus of each recognized party, not the Speaker, which bears the responsibility for ensuring that these votes are held ...
So, as Colin P said, $5 and a form may free up that tidbit of information ...
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 556,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,191
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #943 on: April 12, 2019, 08:45:16 »
Not the reply you expected, was it?
I think it was a good reply.  Thank you.  :salute:

Actually though, I wasn't really expecting any response as these threads serve overwhelmingly as fora for single-minded people to beat dead horses, rather than to facilitate informed discussion.  As such, I try to avoid getting dragged into the mud...but somethings are just so mind-numbingly stupid, I stumble and comment (although I did hold my tongue when Trudeau was accused of "lies, outright arrogance, and aristocratic scorn" -- behaviours that are apparently unseen south of the border).
       :not-again:

I now return to radio silence.  Enjoy.   :deadhorse:

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,470
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #944 on: April 12, 2019, 08:57:09 »
$5 and a form may free up that tidbit of information ...

Parliament (HofC and Senate) is exempt from ATIP I believe.  So not likely...
Optio

Offline Navy_Pete

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 31,185
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 874
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #945 on: April 12, 2019, 10:56:00 »
Parliament (HofC and Senate) is exempt from ATIP I believe.  So not likely...

There isn't a blanket ATIP exemption for all parliamentary business, just cabinet confidence things that apply to decisions taken.  You can read it for yourself here;

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-1.html

Also you can find the list of all completed ATIPs here; https://open.canada.ca/en/access-to-information

Funnily enough, there was one for a 'risk assessment if SNC had been convicted of bribery' with zero returns (ie record didn't exist). So either one was never done under due diligence, it didn't ever get to the correct person to find the record, or someone lied and said they didn't have one. Don't envy the person that got the ATIP request to process this one; that could have been any number of departments that would have gotten tagged with that one(PSPC? Finance? ISED?). But something should have come back, if they are pushing PPSC to look at the deffered prosecution option due to job impacts.

Sometimes people get greasy and try and lawyer their way out of them too (they asked for a risk assessment, but maybe it was called an impact assessment or something). That always kind of annoyed me, but would be interested to see the other side and how they go about putting together their information requests. Sometimes they are shotgun fishing expeditions, but othertimes they ask for very specific documents.

Used to joke about submitting an ATIP on the files I was working on to see if it ever got to me, but that would be a pretty good way to ruin a coworkers day.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,470
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #946 on: April 12, 2019, 11:05:36 »
There isn't a blanket ATIP exemption for all parliamentary business, just cabinet confidence things that apply to decisions taken.  You can read it for yourself here;

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-1.html

Also you can find the list of all completed ATIPs here; https://open.canada.ca/en/access-to-information

Funnily enough, there was one for a 'risk assessment if SNC had been convicted of bribery' with zero returns (ie record didn't exist). So either one was never done under due diligence, it didn't ever get to the correct person to find the record, or someone lied and said they didn't have one. Don't envy the person that got the ATIP request to process this one; that could have been any number of departments that would have gotten tagged with that one(PSPC? Finance? ISED?). But something should have come back, if they are pushing PPSC to look at the deffered prosecution option due to job impacts.

Sometimes people get greasy and try and lawyer their way out of them too (they asked for a risk assessment, but maybe it was called an impact assessment or something). That always kind of annoyed me, but would be interested to see the other side and how they go about putting together their information requests. Sometimes they are shotgun fishing expeditions, but othertimes they ask for very specific documents.

Used to joke about submitting an ATIP on the files I was working on to see if it ever got to me, but that would be a pretty good way to ruin a coworkers day.

And only those departments listed in schedule 1 of the act are subject to the ATI Act.

Found here:  https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/A-1/page-12.html#h-31


government institution means

(a) any department or ministry of state of the Government of Canada, or any body or office, listed in Schedule I, and


(b) any parent Crown corporation, and any wholly-owned subsidiary of such a corporation, within the meaning of section 83 of the Financial Administration Act; (institution fédérale)


Political parties, caucus, HofC and the Senate are not in that list.  So no.

« Last Edit: April 12, 2019, 11:09:20 by Remius »
Optio

Offline Fishbone Jones

    MSC -6945.

  • "Some people will only like you if you fit inside their box. Don't be afraid to shove that box up their ass."
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 280,347
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 18,672
    • Army.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #947 on: April 12, 2019, 11:08:28 »
-- behaviours that are apparently unseen south of the border).
       :not-again:


This story is in Canadian politics. Why would you bring up the US? You've chided others, here and elsewhere for mentioning the US and Trump in Canadian politics, more than once.

Has something changed to make you change your way of thinking? Or is it only you that gets to place America here?

Just wondering. :pop:
Corruption in politics doesn't scare me.
What scares me is how comfortable people are doing nothing about it.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 298,936
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,976
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #948 on: April 12, 2019, 11:45:26 »
Lots of reasons, but it mostly  boils down to that I like filling out the census.
Party aninal ;D

Just kidding. On the bright side if you change your mind and don't want to fill out the census anymore it's only up to a $500 instead of 3 months in jail. My only point of contention was the government forcing people to fill it out.  You mention it's a way to get the best data on your population, we've seen how biased the government can be with data- using it only when it suits them. That's off topic though.



« Last Edit: April 12, 2019, 22:48:50 by Jarnhamar »
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline Lumber

  • Donor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 59,794
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,104
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #949 on: April 12, 2019, 12:14:34 »
You must be an animal at parties  ;D

Just kidding. On the bright side if you change your mind and don't want to fill out the census anymore it's only up to a $500 instead of 3 months in jail. My only point of contention was the government forcing people to fill it out.  You mention it's a way to get the best data on your population, we've seen how biased the government can be with data- using it only when it suits them. That's off topic though.

The data is available to everyone. Regardless of what the government does with it, I want history to have access to it.
"Aboard his ship, there is nothing outside a captain's control." - Captain Sir Edward Pellew

“Extremes to the right and to the left of any political dispute are always wrong.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower

Death before dishonour! Nothing before coffee!