• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

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.
 
Haggis said:
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
dapaterson said:
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 :)
 

Attachments

  • vtiqy.jpg
    vtiqy.jpg
    48.1 KB · Views: 134
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.
 
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.
 
Brad Sallows said:
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
If you want to follow what Butts is telling the committee, CPAC's Twitter feed continues to give good gems via CPAC's reporter on the scene ...
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? ;)
 
milnews.ca said:
If you want to follow what Butts is telling the committee, CPAC's Twitter feed 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?
 
daftandbarmy said:
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) -- here's what "the rules" say:
... 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.

(...)
 

Attachments

  • 53435165_10155794106981191_7026353723576156160_n.jpg
    53435165_10155794106981191_7026353723576156160_n.jpg
    51.6 KB · Views: 143
  • Capture2.JPG
    Capture2.JPG
    113 KB · Views: 133
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 ass. Whether that's legal or, possibly, illegal activity. I don't think he's aware of the difference.

 
Chris Pook said:
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

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.
 
daftandbarmy said:
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.
 
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>
 
Fishbone Jones said:
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.
 
Back
Top