Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

[Loachman]

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/supporters-in-vancouver-riding-would-back-wilson-raybould-as-an-independent-1.4363443

Supporters in Vancouver riding would back Wilson-Raybould as an Independent

Laura Kane and Hina Alam, The Canadian Press

Published Wednesday, April 3, 2019 4:35AM EDT

VANCOUVER - Supporters of Jody Wilson-Raybould in her Vancouver Granville riding say they're disappointed she was ejected from the Liberal caucus but they would back her in the federal election if she ran as an Independent.

Tracy Beshara, executive director of Marpole Oakridge Family Place in south Vancouver, said she has met Wilson-Raybould and she is a woman of "integrity and quality."

"All that is going on with her is a disappointment, and we support her fully," said Beshara. "She's honest. She's real and she can tell you both sides. She won't tell you what you want to hear. She'll tell you the way it is. Most politicians don't do that."

<snip>

Throughout it all, many supporters in Vancouver Granville have stood by their MP, who they describe as direct, honest and genuine. Beshara said she hadn't kept up with every news development but she would "absolutely" support Wilson-Raybould if she ran independently or for a different party.

<snip>

Epperson said if Wilson-Raybould chose to run as an Independent, he'd volunteer for her campaign, as an individual and not as a representative of the church.

"Just after she was elected she reached out to me - I didn't reach out to her - recognizing we were an important constituency within her riding. She's an excellent retail politician and that's a compliment."

<snip>

https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/the-one-and-only-person-to-blame-for-the-snc-lavalin-scandal/

The one and only person to blame for the SNC-Lavalin scandal

Andrew MacDougall: It was Justin Trudeau making bad calls every step of the way. He is the sole author of his government's misfortune.

by Andrew MacDougall Apr 5, 2019

<snip>

Instead of barking at the doctor for diagnosing the disease the Liberals should instead thank Wilson-Raybould and Philpott for highlighting the pathology. Because there is one person to blame for the eight weeks lost to the oozing SNC-Lavalin scandal: Justin Trudeau.

It was Justin Trudeau's advisors who took meeting after meeting with SNC-Lavalin as the company repeatedly begged for a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) regime in Canada.

It was Justin Trudeau who acquiesced and stuffed the legislation creating DPAs into the 2018 budget.

It was Justin Trudeau who told Jody Wilson-Raybould to find a solution when the independent Public Prosecution Service of Canada rejected SNC's application for a DPA.

It was Justin Trudeau who sent adviser after adviser after Wilson-Raybould and her advisers, including his advisers — Elder Marques and Mathieu Bouchard — who met with SNC more than anyone else.

It was Justin Trudeau that was in a mood to get the DPA done, and Justin Trudeau who sent Michael Wernick over to send a message that Wilson-Raybould's job was on the line if she didn't deliver one.

It was Justin Trudeau who pulled the trigger on the cabinet shuffle that sent Wilson-Raybould to Veterans Affairs, and Justin Trudeau who gagged his former minister from giving her side of the story on her resignation.

It was Justin Trudeau who lied and called the original Globe and Mail report "false", and Justin Trudeau who sanctioned his office to go after Wilson-Raybould off the record.

It was Justin Trudeau who gave what was advance-billed as an apology press conference and then forgot to deliver an apology. It was Justin Trudeau who tossed into word salad every time the opposition asked a pointed question about any of it.

It was Justin Trudeau who kept changing his story, and Justin Trudeau who kept calling interference in the criminal justice system a difference of interpretation.

And it was Justin Trudeau who shot the messengers and Justin Trudeau who gaslighted them in the presence of young female leaders, all because he can't take one good look in the mirror.

If Liberals want to be mad at anybody, they should direct their anger to Justin Trudeau, who is the sole author of his government's misfortune.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/liberal-support-just-bleeding-all-over-the-place/

'Liberal support just bleeding all over the place'

A deep dive into recent Angus Reid data shows Liberal support is moving to the Conservatives, NDP and Green parties - a stampede away, rather than a dash toward any particular tent

by Shannon Proudfoot Apr 5, 2019

<snip>

Vote retention - the proportion of people who voted for a party in 2015 who say they would choose the same party again this fall - is "rock solid" for the Conservatives, at 88 per cent, while the Liberals would retain 58 per cent of their 2015 voters. And that erstwhile Liberal support has been sprinkled relatively equitably between the Conservatives, NDP and Green party. That suggests that the shift is a stampede away, rather than a dash toward any particular tent.

"It does suggest that the bleed or the fleeing from the party at the moment has more to do with an anger at the party and a rejection of what people are seeing today from their government and from their prime minister," Kurl says. "[If] we saw a clear signal that all of that vote was going NDP, or Conservative, then it would say to me, okay, this has to do with the other leader more than it has to do with the own goals or the self-inflicted wounds of the Liberals. People are just sort of scattering in all directions, it's a bit of a blast radius."

The big questions are whether the Liberals can draw those exasperated voters back, whether they can do it by October, and how durable that electoral anger is, says Kurl. Those kinds of questions quickly slide into the realm of strategic voting and open up the possibility of a left-of-centre drift to the NDP, she notes, and while Jagmeet Singh's languishing approval numbers would seem to make that unlikely, elections are full of "never say never" oddities (please see: Mulcair, Thomas c. 2015).

In Angus Reid's polling, Kurl sees a significant gender split, with men far more likely to say they will vote Conservative and the Liberals leading among women. The Liberals just tabled a budget filled with measures aimed at dealing with poverty, income inequality and affordability - all issues that tend to resonate with female voters - but it has been virtually impossible for the government to make any of that messaging heard over the din of SNC.

"If there is a saviour right now for the party, it will be the female vote," says Kurl - but the optics and main characters in this saga are doing them no favours on that front. "They need women. And who are the faces and the standard-bearers of this conflict? It's two very strong women."

<snip>

It's a cautionary tale for building a political party's brand so firmly around the persona of the leader, says Kurl, and Trudeau and his party are in a uniquely difficult spot for navigating around it. When Jean Chretien faced an unfavourable personal brand, dubbed "yesterday's man" before he won the leadership of the Liberal party in 1990, he made everything about the team around him, but that does not seem like a plausible option for the Trudeau Liberals.

"This is more than an issue of emphasis. Justin Trudeau has been the party. He has been the brand, he has been the face of government," says Kurl. "Justin Trudeau has never talked about the team, and the party has never talked about the team; it's been the Justin Trudeau show. When the ratings start to go south for the Justin Trudeau show, people are not going to say, 'Well, there's a whole bunch of key supporting players here and an ensemble cast, and the storyline is really interesting so I'm going to stick with it."

Instead, she says, "They change the channel."

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-it-will-be-a-while-before-vogue-calls-on-trudeau-again?video_autoplay=true

Rex Murphy: It will be a while before Vogue calls on Trudeau again

Sans halo, he now walks the ground like every other politician, as pedestrian as the rest of them

Rex Murphy April 5, 2019 4:18 PM EDT

<snip>

It'll be a while before Vogue comes calling again. Or Vanity Fair, oracle of the yuppie woke, teases out such spellbinding headlines as "Let Justin Trudeau in His Pajamas Brighten Your Monday," followed by the beautiful kite tail of a sub-head "Not all superheroes wear capes." Which is shorthand for saying that the "stylishness" component of the Trudeau brand, the meretricious appeal of the politician as celebrity, is done and gone. The charisma of celebrity as opposed to the celebrity of accomplishment or real achievement, is always a thin halo, and can vanish with a tweet. Once evaporated it never returns.

<snip>

What a mockery the tactics of the past few weeks have made of that pledge, that electing the Trudeau team would drag Canada out of the demon pit of "Harper-style politics." Canadian comedy is not nearly as good as it thinks it is, but the purge after-spin has provided a few lines that out-Leacock Stephen Leacock's best for magnificently absurd humour.

On how the Liberals are "doing politics differently," Seamus O'Regan, among the most mobile of the Trudeau cabinet, bested his own (surely immortal) "O Captain! Our Captain!" tweet - the Everest summit of courtier sycophancy - when he came up with this one-liner for CTV: "I think it's a real strength that it took us time to come to terms with this." Absolutely. And just think how much stronger the party would be if it had dragged it out even longer. No pain, no gain, I suppose.

Superb bon mot that it was, O'Regan's must bend the knee and take the silver to the real howler than came from fellow standup artist/cabinet minister Marie-Claude Bibeau: "If we had done politics like it used to be done, they would have been kicked out two months ago ... this is why we say it's doing politics differently." Translation: we're like Stephen Harper, only slower. Harper in lead boots.

<snip>

Twelve hours after firing the two women that - I think it's fair to say - the majority of the Daughters of the Vote most wanted to meet, or looked up to, Mr. Trudeau mumbled-stumbled through the most awkward six minutes of his none too distinguished oratorical life. At one point he appeared not to remember Jane Philpott's name. Perhaps a kinder explanation is that he was too embarrassed to say it. He did show up - he must be given credit for that.

But what could he say to the gathering of young feminists, as it were, the morning after? He wandered, as is his wont, through a forest of non-sequiturs, referenced a fantasy feud between Jody Wilson-Raybould and Chrystia Freeland ("I know nobody in here wants to have to pick who to believe between Jody Wilson-Raybould and Chrystia Freeland"), tried his best to ignore that he was speaking to the backs of about 50 or so of his audience, muttered the obligatory reference to diversity, something about trust and teams, and things went more or less downhill from there.

<snip>

Mr. Trudeau is 47, white, and male. A few more years and he'll hit the trifecta he so abundantly abhors.

https://www.thestar.com/opinion/star-columnists/2019/04/05/the-liberals-have-abandoned-their-moral-principles-and-its-justin-trudeaus-fault.html

The Liberals have abandoned their moral principles and it's Justin Trudeau's fault

By Rosie DiManno Star Fri., April 5, 2019

It is dismaying to me, a political agnostic, that thuggery is now attached to the federal Liberal party.

It is appalling to me, a feminist, that so many who claim to respect women, who call themselves feminists - most especially the piously feminist prime minister but all his acolytes in the partisan media - have turned themselves inside-out to rationalize the bullying of female Liberal ministers. Because, readily admitted even, the existential threat of Andrew Scheer at 24 Sussex Drive looms as such a calamity, come the October election, that anything, anything, would be preferable, up to and including the abandonment of all moral principles.

It is grotesque, to me, how small and vindictive Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had become - lifted on the shoulders of his party disciples - trying to make a virtue out of the jettisoning of two women who dared to vouchsafe integrity, falling afoul of the caucus cabal.

While it is marginally understandable that Jody Wilson-Raybould had to be cut loose despite the ugly optics of ditching the country's first Indigenous justice minister and attorney general - before she was shuffled to veteran affairs in January, at the dawn (though we didn't yet know that) of the SNC-Lavalin scandal - her utter expulsion this week, the pariah-making of an ethical individual is confounding in its berserk timing, seven weeks into the shemozzle and guaranteed to do the exact opposite of bringing this ruinous episode to an end.

<snip>

There is no redeeming dimension to Trudeau's brutality. He has dissembled and shammed his way through nearly two months of tortuous squabble. If the Liberal party is in crisis, the seeds were sown in the PMO and a PM of towering hauteur.

A phoney feminist to boot.

To be worn only like a rose on his lapel.

 

[Loachman]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/snc-lavalin-justin-trudeaus-fall-grace/586645/

Justin Trudeau Falls From Grace

The Canadian prime minister faces a political crisis of his own devising.

Apr 8, 2019 David Frum

<snip>

But there were always two cracks visible in the face Trudeau presented to the world, and over the past three weeks, those lines have widened.

The first flaw: When frustrated or disappointed, he loses his cool. As one person on the receiving end of his ill temper put it to me, "He yells when he does not get his way, then gloats when he does." The second? Trudeau does not always accurately think through the ultimate consequences of his actions.

Together, those two fault lines create a dangerous formula for bad decision making in times of crisis.

Over the four years since he came to power in November 2015, Trudeau has offset his personal weaknesses by relying heavily on shrewder advisers. But since February, a serious and growing scandal has cost him the service of trusted aides. The head of the civil service has been forced to resign. Trudeau has been left more and more to his own judgment. This past weekend, that judgment tinged the scandal with a new note of farce.

On April 3, in the Canadian House of Commons, Trudeau was forced, under tightly focused questioning by Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, to acknowledge that one of his first important statements about the scandal had been a falsehood.

On April 7, the leader of the Conservative Party, Andrew Scheer, revealed that a week earlier, a lawyer for Trudeau had threatened him with a libel lawsuit, a rare step in Canadian politics. One basis of the threat? Scheer had, on March 29, accused Trudeau of lying about the very thing that, on April 3, Trudeau admitted to lying about.

Could the situation get more absurd? Yes! On the evening of April 7, Trudeau's spinners issued a statement denouncing Scheer for wasting the public's time talking about issues irrelevant to Canadians’ real concerns - that is, by talking about the lawsuit Trudeau himself had initiated.

<snip>

It was for saying these things outside Parliament that Trudeau threatened litigation on March 31. The abrupt collapse of the factual predicate for that lawsuit in the following week led to the unusual outcome that by April 7, the target of the lawsuit eagerly invited the prospective plaintiff to proceed: "If Mr. Trudeau intends to pursue this course of legal action, if he believes he has a case against me, I urge him to do so immediately," Scheer said. That same day, a spokesperson for the prospective plaintiff dismissed his own threat of a lawsuit as a petty distraction from the important concerns of voters: "Andrew Scheer’s press conference today is yet another attempt at talking about anything other than his own damaging plans for the economy."

https://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2019/04/09/Why-Has-Trudeau-Risked-So-Much-SNC-Lavalin/

<snip>

Why Has Trudeau Risked So Much for SNC-Lavalin?

Four related mysteries fuel flames of an ever more ruinous scandal.

By Michael Harris

4. Why squander the 'transparent' high ground?

The PM's final bit of amnesia? These words from his mandate letter to his minister of international development back in 2015:

"It's time to shine more light on government... Government and its information should be open by default... It is important that we acknowledge mistakes when we make them... Canadians do not expect us to be perfect - they always expect us to be honest, open and sincere..."

Not much of that since Feb. 7.

 

[FJAG]

The applicable sections of the Parliament of Canada Act, as amended by Chong’s Reform Act:

“49.1 In this Division, caucus means a group composed solely of members of the House of Commons who are members of the same recognized party.

2015, c. 37, s. 4.
Marginal note:Expulsion of caucus member

49.2 A member of a caucus may only be expelled from it if

(a) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting that the member’s membership be reviewed; and

(b) the expulsion of the member is approved by secret ballot by a majority of all caucus members.

2015, c. 37, s. 4.”


With that established, I looked for any specific or general offense provision that would link to this, and there isn’t one- so I don’t see an offense that a party leader or official(s) could be investigated for and charged with for a contravention of this. I think this leaves it subject to either civil litigation or judicial review on application to a court, but I’m really not sure how that would play out. I’m wondering if FJAG might have some insight for how an aggrieved party could proceed in such a case? I’m sure there’s recourse, but I don’t know what it is, and I don’t see anything that would bring the police into play...

I'm not generally familiar with the Act but like you I gave it a quick read for an Offences and Punishments section. There is one but it is entirely limited to the circumstance of illegally using the term "Parliament Hill". Without a general (or specific to s 49) "Offences" provision there is no prosecution (and thereby police investigation) provided for any breach of the Act.

Recourse would be some form of civil procedure by the Federal Court to enforce the appropriate provision which is being contravened (for example a declaration or injunction might be issued negating or suspending the improper act, or an order might be issued to redo the process this time using the appropriate methods etc)

As an aside I find it quite interesting that the general press hasn't jumped on the dictatorial personality of Trudeau like they did to Harper who was, IMHO, nowhere near as bad as this boy is.

:cheers:

 

[YZT580]

Why has the liberal party risked so much for SNC Lavelin?  The question was asked in one of the editorials quoted above and it bears repeating.  There had to be red flags posted all over this issue way back in September.  There are some pretty bright people working in the PMO who would certainly have marked this as dangerous territory and cautioned Trudeau against proceeding.  The folks behind Trudeau who pull the strings and run the party would certainly not have allowed this mess to develop unless they couldn't see any way around it.  9000 jobs seems like a lot but GM has lost more in Oshawa in the last decade and the oil fields have bled probably twice that many so that can't be it.  Any ideas?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Why has the liberal party risked so much for SNC Lavelin?  The question was asked in one of the editorials quoted above and it bears repeating.  There had to be red flags posted all over this issue way back in September.  There are some pretty bright people working in the PMO who would certainly have marked this as dangerous territory and cautioned Trudeau against proceeding.  The folks behind Trudeau who pull the strings and run the party would certainly not have allowed this mess to develop unless they couldn't see any way around it.  9000 jobs seems like a lot but GM has lost more in Oshawa in the last decade and the oil fields have bled probably twice that many so that can't be it.  Any ideas?

Arrogance. Plain and simple.
That and an overwhelming desire to kill Canada.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Why has the liberal party risked so much for SNC Lavelin?  The question was asked in one of the editorials quoted above and it bears repeating.  There had to be red flags posted all over this issue way back in September.  There are some pretty bright people working in the PMO who would certainly have marked this as dangerous territory and cautioned Trudeau against proceeding.  The folks behind Trudeau who pull the strings and run the party would certainly not have allowed this mess to develop unless they couldn't see any way around it.  9000 jobs seems like a lot but GM has lost more in Oshawa in the last decade and the oil fields have bled probably twice that many so that can't be it.  Any ideas?

Corruption, plain and simple. In the link below SNC-Lavalin was illegally donating to political parties (with the Liberals being the main recipient), I wonder what else is going on behind the scenes there. Personally I am surprised that this also hasn't really been brought up (or if it has I haven't seen it) in the news for this scandal.

https://globalnews.ca/news/2927286/snc-lavalin-illegally-donated-over-117k-to-federal-parties-elections-canada/

https://business.financialpost.com/news/snc-lavalin-donated-more-than-1-million-to-quebec-political-parties-commission-told

 

[Kirkhill]

Why has the liberal party risked so much for SNC Lavelin?  The question was asked in one of the editorials quoted above and it bears repeating.  There had to be red flags posted all over this issue way back in September.  There are some pretty bright people working in the PMO who would certainly have marked this as dangerous territory and cautioned Trudeau against proceeding.  The folks behind Trudeau who pull the strings and run the party would certainly not have allowed this mess to develop unless they couldn't see any way around it.  9000 jobs seems like a lot but GM has lost more in Oshawa in the last decade and the oil fields have bled probably twice that many so that can't be it.  Any ideas?

The people that know aren't telling.

That leaves room for speculation, which we are all free to do.

The media have an abundance of juicy facts openly available to drive headlines and sales so they don't have a requirement to speculate.  Much more to come on this, I speculate.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I'm not generally familiar with the Act but like you I gave it a quick read for an Offences and Punishments section. There is one but it is entirely limited to the circumstance of illegally using the term "Parliament Hill". Without a general (or specific to s 49) "Offences" provision there is no prosecution (and thereby police investigation) provided for any breach of the Act.

Recourse would be some form of civil procedure by the Federal Court to enforce the appropriate provision which is being contravened (for example a declaration or injunction might be issued negating or suspending the improper act, or an order might be issued to redo the process this time using the appropriate methods etc)

Adding to that, it appears there's still more to the story -- this from The Canadian Press ...

... Amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, spearheaded by Conservative MP Michael Chong, were passed in 2015 in an effort to decentralize political power on Parliament Hill and put it back in the hands of rank-and-file MPs.

However, the new rules also left it up to caucus members, at their first meeting following an election, to decide whether to opt into the Chong reforms.  The act states that recorded votes are to be held on four different provisions, including the provisions on expulsion of caucus members.(1)

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.

Philpott said that left her, Wilson-Raybould and other MPs who might run afoul of Trudeau in the dark about how to fight an expulsion effort and how they might be readmitted to the Liberal caucus (2) ...

(1) - On this bit, here's what the law says:

... 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 ...

(2) -- The law does include how to get back into caucus ...

... 49.3 A member of the House of Commons who has been expelled from the caucus of a party may only be readmitted to the caucus
    (a) if the member is re-elected to the House of Commons as a candidate for that party; or
    (b) if
        (i) the caucus chair has received a written notice signed by at least 20% of the members of the caucus requesting the member’s readmission to the caucus, and
        (ii) the readmission of the member is approved by a majority vote by secret ballot of the members of that caucus who are present at a meeting of the caucus ...

And as for a judicial review of any of this?  From the legislation ...

... 49.7 Any determination of a matter relating to the internal operations of a party by the caucus, a committee of the caucus or the caucus chair is final and not subject to judicial review ...

So, legal?  Appears that all the steps within the new rules were taken. 

Greasy?  Oh yeah, but it was unanimously agreed that these rules didn't have to apply to the Liberal caucus (including votes by Philpott & JWR at the time), as allowed by the law, so there's a lot of greasiness to go around ...

 

[Navy_Pete]

The rules were optional, but the law required them to vote on it at the first opportunity (which would have been sometime in late 2015).  That's the part of the law they broke. They could have done what the NDP did, and voted against it when it came up, and been good to go. Or they could have accepted it, and that process should have applied. But they did neither, so they can roll like a fiefdom. 

Kind of weird to put a law in place with no penalties for not following it, assuming something like that would fall under the providence of elections canada, with penalties levied against the party for non-compliance.

 

[Jarnhamar]

[quote author=milnews.ca]

Greasy? 
[/quote]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FsAgPuVwU

 

[Kirkhill]

The rules were optional, but the law required them to vote on it at the first opportunity (which would have been sometime in late 2015).  That's the part of the law they broke. They could have done what the NDP did, and voted against it when it came up, and been good to go. Or they could have accepted it, and that process should have applied. But they did neither, so they can roll like a fiefdom. 

Kind of weird to put a law in place with no penalties for not following it, assuming something like that would fall under the providence of elections canada, with penalties levied against the party for non-compliance.

I think it comes under the head of "parliamentary sovereignty" and is related to the immunities to law that members of parliament possess while in the physical premises of parliament. 

 

[Navy_Pete]

I guess, but seeing as all the rules for the running of a riding association, nomination of candidates, etc fall under the Elections Act, seems like it would have fit in there (given that the candidate was at some point nominated by the local riding association, at least in theory).

Either way, the fact that they couldn't be bothered to just vote against it if they didn't want to adopt the rule is pretty galling. Not sure if that's lazy, arrogant, or just a lack of attention to details, but none of those are really good indicators for how to run a railroad.

Amazing, all this could have been avoided by admitting to a mistake, and spinning it off as a misunderstanding 'of the different' truths'. I don't get people sometimes; the Trudeau Party of Canada has now torpedoed their 'brand' worldwide, and alienated a lot of people that voted against Harper (vice for them). They went from something that could have been a minor hiccup with a temporary black eye, to something that has been simmering for months and kicking them in the teeth daily.

 

[The Bread Guy]

I guess, but seeing as all the rules for the running of a riding association, nomination of candidates, etc fall under the Elections Act, seems like it would have fit in there (given that the candidate was at some point nominated by the local riding association, at least in theory).

But the Elections Act covers a non-partisan activity, while the Parliament of Canada Act tries to govern political stuff, which is trickier to manage, given how much political control politicians will want.  I'm guessing that's why they threw in the "a court can't review what we decide" bit.

... the fact that they couldn't be bothered to just vote against it if they didn't want to adopt the rule is pretty galling. Not sure if that's lazy, arrogant, or just a lack of attention to details, but none of those are really good indicators for how to run a railroad ...

... or a whipped-but-not-whipped attempt to make it easier for the boss to do whatever they want.

 

[The Bread Guy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7FsAgPuVwU

:rofl: I didn't even think of that until AFTER I'd posted.

 

[Loachman]

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/im-not-withdrawing-my-remarks-scheer-repeats-alleged-libel-goads-trudeau-to-follow-through-on-lawsuit/wcm/bf5021cc-3936-4f66-be8c-affc531b705c

'I'm not withdrawing my remarks': Scheer repeats alleged libel, goads Trudeau to follow through on lawsuit

'Will he have the backbone to stand by his threats and show up in court to fight this case?' the Conservative leader asked of the PM

The Canadian Press Updated: April 10, 2019

OTTAWA - Andrew Scheer did his level best Wednesday to provoke Prime Minister Justin Trudeau into following through on his threat to sue him over allegedly libellous criticism of the SNC-Lavalin affair.

The Conservative leader repeated, word for word, the March 29 statement that prompted Trudeau’s lawyer, Julian Porter, to send him notice of a potential libel suit.

For good measure, Scheer did it outside the House of Commons - making the point that he’s not trying to hide behind parliamentary privilege that protects anything said in the chamber from lawsuits.

"I'm not withdrawing my remarks. In fact, I'm standing by them and I repeated them outside of the House of Commons," Scheer told Trudeau during question period a short time later.

"Will he have the backbone to stand by his threats and show up in court to fight this case?"

Trudeau did not respond directly to Scheer's repeated taunts but he didn't withdraw the threat either.

"We put (Scheer) on notice because he and his party have a history of making false and defamatory statements," the prime minister said.

"We won't stand by while he continues to mislead Canadians."

<snip>

Scheer said he stands by "every single word" in that statement, whereas Trudeau's "falsehoods" in the SNC-Lavalin affair "would be perjury in a court of law."

 

[Furniture]

Arrogance. Plain and simple.
That and an overwhelming desire to kill Canada.

I completely agree with the highlighted part.

This strikes me as a clear example of what happens when a leader is surrounded by yes people(need to be inclusive), and then falls for their own hype. This is the kind of thing I'd expect from a government late in it's second term,  or into it's third. I suppose we should all thank the PMO for exposing the rot at it's core so soon.

 

[Remius]

I completely agree with the highlighted part.

This strikes me as a clear example of what happens when a leader is surrounded by yes people(need to be inclusive), and then falls for their own hype. This is the kind of thing I'd expect from a government late in it's second term,  or into it's third. I suppose we should all thank the PMO for exposing the rot at it's core so soon.

Same.  But I think it goes beyond yes men.  It has to do I think with a PMO that has been able to avoid any serious repercussions for their actions, statements etc.  The Teflon has worn off.  They likely thought they could weather this because they weathered issues before that had no real effect on them.  This time it is different and they don't know what to do. 

It's like the popular girl in school that can do no wrong.  She can say and do what she wants because everyone likes her.  Until she finally crosses the line and everyone hates her.  She keeps acting the way she is because she does not know anything else.  And she can't ever understand why people don't like her anymore.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Can anybody really, really think of one good thing this guy has done for Canada and Canadians since he's been in office? I have yet seen him do anything that is good for us, but he's great at taking care of the world. From where I sit, every single thing he does mires us in more debt, divides Canadians, increase our dependence on foreign oil, ignores the homeless and destitute while allowing millions of social dollars to go to illegal aliens.

I'm just guessing that any money he's giving away must be borrowed. Canada is surely broke, insolvent and overdrawn. My concern is who might be holding the IOU's.

And Great Zeus, the lies, outright arrogance and aristocratic scorn, watching him tell reporters that he is going to hold the conservatives to the rule of law and that their untruths won't be tolerated and he's had enough of people lying. When even the blindest person can see where the lies, cheating and deceit is really coming from. Straight out of the Joseph Goebbels 101. This is the true face of the Laurentien Elites.

We went to bed with Harper in charge, fairly happy and content with our standing. Then we woke up in some sort of Bizzarro World and have been standing around looking at our navels while the country implodes wondering what the hell happened.

 

[Lumber]

Can anybody really, really think of one good thing this guy has done for Canada and Canadians since he's been in office?

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.

 

[QV]

2. Lowered taxes for middle class

I've had to pay more and more every year since 2015.  My rate of pay has been fairly consistent.  My feeling is there are more taxes now than before.

Edit:  My 2017 return is about the same as my 2014 return, but my 2015 and 2016 returns were slightly higher by 1.5 - 2%.  Whatever you can make of that...