• 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

Chantal Hébert - March 11, 2019

And then it is one thing for Trudeau to get his ministerial ducks back in a row and another more difficult task to adjust to running a government without Gerald Butts in the Prime Minister’s Office.

No government can lose a player in a role as central as that of the former principal secretary without entering into a zone of relative turbulence, especially in an election year and especially with Trudeau himself caught in the crosswinds.

I really wonder if Butts is really gone. As Trudeau's best bud, he will still be in a position to manipulate the puppet strings. He just will just not be available 24/7 or all day during business hours. Surely the two will still meet regularly.

The LPC may have even hired him as a "consultant" so he will still have a pay cheque.
 
I wonder if he's in Florida with trudeau? I doubt Butts is gone. I speculated earlier that this would just give him free reign and no accountability to the system. I wouldn't be surprised to see him hanging around and running things as a volunteer. I don't doubt there are many aspects of this government that are contingent on future favours and payments of some sort, including butts.
 
Rifleman62 said:
I really wonder if Butts is really gone.

I doubt he's gone. Just more free to move around now with less oversight. Like one of Wernick's shadowy assassins  :o
 
I better get started on my welcome baskets for returning jihadis. Four more years of sunny ways, here we come!
 
That should tempt a lot of journalists to pile on...

There is only one reason to prevent somebody from speaking: It can only be worse for them than being accused of a cover-up.

Meanwhile, digging continues.

https://www.thepostmillennial.com/trudeau-government-signed-a-secret-deal-with-snc-only-days-after-2015-election/

Trudeau government signed a secret deal with SNC only days after 2015 election

by Ali Taghva Mar 12

According to the National Observer, the Trudeau government announced a confidential deal with SNC, just "four days after Trudeau’s first throne speech in 2015."

The National Observer article goes into far more depth, and I suggest you give their article a read, and maybe even subscribe to continue helping their public service journalism.

The deal between SNC and the federal government was the first under the new "integrity regime." No other company has reached such a deal since.

The former Harper government created Canada's "integrity regime," in 2015 "to ensure the government does business solely with ethical partners."

The integrity regime allows businesses to continue operating while working to meet ethical demands. In the case of SNC-Lavalin, that involves working to fix the company's history of bribery, specifically $48 million paid to secure contracts in Libya.

<snip>

https://www.hilltimes.com/2019/03/13/snc-lavalin-affair-ripe-for-opposition-to-capitalize-on-but-scheer-singh-poll-numbers-still-flat/192218

SNC-Lavalin affair ripe for opposition to capitalize on, say politicos, but Scheer, Singh poll numbers still flat

By Jolson Lim & Neil Moss  Mar. 13, 2019

While Justin Trudeau's poll numbers have sunk amid the controversy, Andrew Scheer and Jagmeet Singh have not seen a boost to their own polling numbers as opposition leaders. But it's still early days, say strategists.

The SNC-Lavalin affair has hurt Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's approval numbers, but political commentators say it remains to be seen whether Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh can use the controversy to bump past the Liberal leader in the polls ahead of October's election.

Recent polling shows that Mr. Trudeau (Papineau, Que.) and his government's popularity have taken a dive since the SNC-Lavalin affair began on Feb. 7, when the Globe and Mail reported allegations that the prime minister's office pressed former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville, B.C.) to drop criminal charges against the company.

Amid the ongoing controversy, Mr. Scheer's and Mr. Singh's popularity have remained relatively stagnant, as suggested by Abacus Data's numbers based on more than 8,800 interviews conducted between Jan. 30 and March 4, and other polls.

<snip>

While polling indicates Mr. Trudeau’s numbers have taken a hit, Tim Powers, managing director of Abacus Data and a former Conservative adviser, cautioned that it takes time before all the impacts of a major controversy can be fully reflected in polling.

"At first people focus on the story at hand and then they begin to assess how people are performing. And often the assessment starts with the central character," said Mr. Powers, who is also vice-chairman of Summa Strategies. "In this case it's the prime minister."

Karl Bélanger, a former interim NDP national director, said the declining support for Mr. Trudeau is the key indicator right now because of how the Liberals have over relied on his leadership brand.

"The flip side of that is both the Conservatives and NDP are basically doing better than their own leaders," said Mr. Bélanger. "It shows that the voters aren't motivated by the personalities of their respective leaders, but more about the need for change."

<snip>

"The challenge for the opposition is to find new information and to keep the story alive, and to not get bored with it," Mr. Bélanger said. "And to keep the newsrooms interested in it as well."

<snip>
 
Interesting opinion piece by Neil MacDonald.

Puts a perspective on things.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/opinion/opposition-scheer-1.5055428
 
Remius, I would say that Neil M. Hit piece is not alternative perspective. It is a diversionary backslap to the Conservatives. Merely meant to earn some of the media funding previously provided.
 
It reminds me of a time when certain journalists were happy to play caricature opposition to Stephen Harper.
 
Jed said:
Remius, I would say that Neil M. Hit piece is not alternative perspective. It is a diversionary backslap to the Conservatives. Merely meant to earn some of the media funding previously provided.

It is an opinion piece.  It also brings up valid points. 

Rather than use that line of bought media that seems to be making the rounds, I am willing to hear any refutation of those points.  The PM is a hypocrite, but so are those going after him.  One day JWR is a villain they wanted removed but now she's a hero.  Right.  Charlie Angus is NDP by the way. And he also points the finger at the liberals as well.  Did you actually go to the letHerspeak website?  I did and I rolled my eyes. 

I made this point about how many people including those on this site criticized Trudeau for putting someone like JWR and Jane Philpot in cabinet.  Now they want her to be PM.

Andrew Scheer would rule his cabinet the same way Trudeau has and the same way Harper did.  With a tight grip. 

Neil MacDonald'd piece is about the reality of opposition and how like question period is a show.  He lists enough examples to prove his point. 
 
What a great country this would be if our representatives actually voted their conscience and the will of their constituents, instead of mindlessly towing the party line. "Because I said so" may work for the parents of toddlers, but not as a basis of government.
 
Target Up said:
What a great country this would be if our representatives actually voted their conscience and the will of their constituents, instead of mindlessly towing the party line. "Because I said so" may work for the parents of toddlers, but not as a basis of government.

Sucks yes but then we wouldn't get much done.  I would however like to see more MPs step down to become independents if it is the will of their constituents.  If their constituents truly want it they will support them.

Take Amanda Simard who quit caucus at the provincial level over Doug Ford's decisions regarding Franco Ontarians.  She followed her conscious.  Did not cross the floor to another party that would be counter to her core political beliefs and I would put money down that her constituents will re-elect her (she likely actually gained support from people that would have voted against her).  Those cases are few and far between though.
 
Target Up said:
What a great country this would be if our representatives actually voted their conscience and the will of their constituents, instead of mindlessly towing the party line. "Because I said so" may work for the parents of toddlers, but not as a basis of government.
Double-edged sword, that.  Some/many wouldn't be happy if their rep voted their conscience when it may not be the will of the constituents.
 
milnews.ca said:
Double-edged sword, that.  Some/many wouldn't be happy if their rep voted their conscience when it may not be the will of the constituents.

So the current "screw all of you, the boss wants this, so this is how it is" is preferable? Athens, Magna Carta, 1776 etc were just thought experiments, I guess.
 
Target Up said:
So the current "screw all of you, the boss wants this, so this is how it is" is preferable? Athens, Magna Carta, 1776 etc were just thought experiments, I guess.

I would argue that people in those systems were also strong armed to tow the line as well on many occasions.  Some were also dealt with quite harshly for not doing so...

MPs can make there choices but they have to live with the consequences.
 
For all of you interested in alternative parliamentary universes may I suggest looking across the pond today to Westminster.

The PM can't control the House, her Parliamentary Party, her extra-parliamentary party, her cabinet, her attorney-general or her civil service.

But that's OK because none of the opposition party leaders are doing any better.

Chaos reigns.

Personally I am happy to see it.  Democracy in action.  (no sarcasm intended - I am truly pleased to see the UK demonstrating how to have a heated debate).
 
Target Up said:
So the current "screw all of you, the boss wants this, so this is how it is" is preferable?
Not at all.  Just saying that some ideas sound good in theory, but may lead to other issues (or different dissatisfaction) if put into practice.

Always worth discussing possibilities, because as someone smarter than me once said ...
Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…
 
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/how-jody-wilson-raybould-could-speak-her-truth-even-if-liberals-block-return-to-justice-committee?video_autoplay=true

How Jody Wilson-Raybould could speak her truth, even if Liberals block return to justice committee

Here are the principal ways she could still tell her side of the story

<snip>

A key issue for Wilson-Raybould is what she’s allowed to discuss publicly. She’s made it clear she does not want to discuss matters covered by cabinet confidence, the long-standing principle that discussions between cabinet ministers are secret, unless she gets an explicit waiver from the prime minister. She has also said she needs a waiver to discuss any legal advice she gave to Trudeau or cabinet.

Yet if Wilson-Raybould speaks in Parliament, she is covered by the sweeping power of parliamentary privilege — the constitutional right of Members of Parliament to freely discuss matters of public interest while performing their duties, and to be protected from civil or criminal liability in doing so. Most experts believe that parliamentary privilege trumps all other forms of privilege, including cabinet confidence and solicitor-client privilege.

"The whole point of parliamentary privilege is so you can say anything in Parliament that's vital to the national interest, and you shouldn’t have to be worried about the courts or the executive sanctioning you in some way," said Carleton University professor Philippe Lagassé, who specializes in the Westminster parliamentary system.

Wilson-Raybould could address the House of Commons in a variety of ways. In February, she used a point of order after a vote to tell the Commons what she needed in order to speak. "I understand fully that Canadians want to know the truth and want transparency," she said at the time. "Privilege and confidentiality are not mine to waive, and I hope that I have the opportunity to speak my truth."

She could find another way to make a point of order that allows her to discuss these issues, though points of order are supposed to be constrained to the topic of whether the procedures of the Commons are being properly followed.

An easier route for Wilson-Raybould could be to make a Member's Statement. Such statements are given before Question Period and can be on "virtually any matter of local, provincial, national or international concern," according to House of Commons guidelines. The main constraint is they are supposed to be capped at one minute. Speaker Geoff Regan would have the discretion to allow for a longer statement, however.

<snip>
 
Back
Top