Why Progressives are mistaken in defending Trudeau et al.

” The superior man understands what is right; the inferior man understands what sells.” ~ Confucious

Whoever said politics is a blood-sport, wasn’t wrong and if you’ve been a House of Cards fan you’ll know the quote: “The road to power is paved with hypocrisy and casualties…”

The political arena in Canada right now is full of casualties and I don’t think we’ve seen the last of it with respect to the SNC Lavalin debacle involving Trudeau and the staff that surround him. And make no mistake, this entire affair IS about Trudeau et al.. no matter how much anyone tries to convince you otherwise.

It is not about Jody Wilson-Rayboulds personality.

It is not about her being ‘difficult’,  a derogatory description often used to denigrate strong women who can’t or won’t be bullied or influenced.

It is not about her past as a lawyer. And it certainly isn’t about the opinion of any defence lawyer who worked with her in the past when she was a prosecutor who didn’t work with him the way he would have preferred.

It isn’t even about whether you like her, or her party. All of these points have come up and been used by the Conservatives of course, who are more than happy to pounce because an election is coming… but they have also been used widely by fellow progressives, including feminist women, to separate and marginalize the testimony of Jody Wilson-Raybould. It started during her testimony when her fellow Liberal MP’s, questioned her aggressively as if she were on trial and not their leaders actions.

It’s been embarrassing and shameful to watch. We just went through this here in BC when the media and BC Liberal partisans attacked Daryll Plecas. Many of the same people who decried the smears on Plecas, are now the among those attacking Wilson-Raybould. Many of the same people I have stood alongside in fighting Harpers regressive policies, and then Clarks, have been defending Trudeaus actions by saying even Wilson-Raybould had said they weren’t illegal… which, it has been pointed out, may in fact be incorrect:


Screenshot 2019-03-04 at 2.03.36 PM

Everything is upside down…but I digress.

Seeing this defence used by a very progressive and educated woman I know recently, who literally pooh-poohed Trudeaus actions as nothing, I asked her if she would have said the same thing if it had been Clark interfering in something  serious ‘ because jobs’.

She didn’t respond…because she and I both know the truth is that she wouldn’t have excused it if it was Clark,or Harper, or any other leader so many were glad to see depart. There were many times Clarks actions in government rightfully garnered outrage and calls for resignation even though they weren’t illegal. I was there every single time, as were most of you. But turning a blind eye is a dangerous game.

That’s why, when Clark first appeared on CTV defending the Prime Minister, it should have given everyone a reality check. https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/christy-clark-says-jody-wilson-raybould-should-have-reported-any-inappropriate-pmo-pressure-1.4299629

Sigh. One would think she might only speak on the issue of unethical behavior once, but oh no, the premier that was so misguided her own party wanted her gone, came back a second time to comment. ( can you hear my eyes roll? Former SNC Lavalin director Gwyn Morgan was her transition advisor while he was still with SNC )

Paul Wells mentions her in this excellent piece today: https://www.macleans.ca/opinion/moving-the-goalposts-and-lowering-the-bar/

But why are we even getting upset, some Liberals would have us ask? This scandal is boring people to death, former B.C. premier Christy Clark opined on QP. The company didn’t even get what it wanted! The system worked! This isn’t even a vegan nothingburger it’s so nothing!

If you’re a Liberal joining the former premier in making those arguments—and I like to imagine Ben Chin, Clark’s former staffer now starring for Bill Morneau in between his bouts of pressuring the former attorney general on SNC, is—well, then, congratulations to you, I suppose. How quickly you’ve fallen. It usually takes governments 10 years to go from “real change” to “meet the new boss, way, way, way, worse than the old boss”.  Who knew the one thing the deliverology unit actually delivered on was in stripping away the consciences of those elected to the Liberal benches in 2015?

Declaring this scandal as boring or a non starter shows how out of touch she still is with the average person. Defending Trudeau or giving him a hall pass doesn’t serve anyone,least of all Progressives. It does not serve the justice system. It doesn’t serve the goal of getting big money out of politics. And it doesn’t serve the goal of keeping other leaders with regressive and divisive policies out of the PM’s chair. Let me tell you why.

While this insane ‘defend Trudeau,attack Jody’ strategy has been playing out, the Conservatives are gaining ground. Maxime Bernier and his ” We’ll fix everything” crew  are also not so quietly gaining ground in certain areas…a development that is truly alarming. My former editor from 24Hours Vancouver offered his take on this here: https://www.burnabynow.com/federal-election-2019/is-this-the-last-we-ve-seen-of-laura-lynn-in-burnaby-politics-not-likely-1.23645513

You are worried about Scheer winning the next election?Me too, so stop swallowing your discomfort in spades  to defend Trudeau when we all know what happened was wrong, regardless of whether it was legal or not. The second the coming election and votes were mentioned it was wrong. That’s political. Every move he has made has compounded the mistakes and every second this drags on the Conservatives grow stronger which puts everything progressive at risk, because no one truly can take SNC Lavalins side here.

SNC Lavalin has a long and often checkered history, particularly outside of Canada. As I detailed in depth recently, their connections to BC Liberal projects in BC is extensive and largely unexamined, and projects occurred  during the same time period as the current  corruption charges. SNC also had a lobbyist out here in BC talking to NDP mlas, Geogg Meggs and Rich Coleman about oil and gas pipeline project management while this  Trudeau pressure was happening back east. https://lailayuile.com/2019/02/13/snc-lavalin-lobbyist-met-with-bc-mlas-last-year-just-as-trials-were-underway-back-east/

I’ve said often over the years that blind partisanship no matter where it lives, will be the death of democracy.

It’s toxic. It serves no one, and it fosters a culture where leaders and their inner circle begin to feel untouchable and thus start to appear arrogant. They know that their most loyal supporters won’t say a word… ‘ because Power”.

Christy Clark learned that the hard way…and I suspect Trudeau is about to as well.


** update**

While writing this, Liberal Treasury Board President resigned from the LPC cabinet. Her resignation letter is posted here: https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/read-jane-philpott-s-full-resignation-letter-1.4321826

Dear Prime Minister,

It is an enormous privilege to be the Member of Parliament for Markham-Stouffville and to have served as Minister of Health, then Minister of Indigenous Services, then President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Digital Government. It has been an honour to play a leading role in progress that has shaped our country: bringing Syrian refugees to Canada; legislating a balanced approach to Medical Assistance in Dying; negotiating a health accord with new resources for mental health and home care; improving infrastructure for First Nations to provide clean water on reserve; and reforming child welfare to reduce the over-apprehension of Indigenous children.

However, I have been considering the events that have shaken the federal government in recent weeks and after serious reflection, I have concluded that I must resign as a member of Cabinet.

In Canada, the constitutional convention of Cabinet solidarity means, among other things, that ministers are expected to defend all Cabinet decisions. A minister must always be prepared to defend other ministers publicly, and must speak in support of the government and its policies. Given this convention and the current circumstances, it is untenable for me to continue to serve as a Cabinet minister.

Unfortunately, the evidence of efforts by politicians and/or officials to pressure the former Attorney General to intervene in the criminal case involving SNC-Lavalin, and the evidence as to the content of those efforts have raised serious concerns for me. Those concerns have been augmented by the views expressed by my constituents and other Canadians.

The solemn principles at stake are the independence and integrity of our justice system. It is a fundamental doctrine of the rule of law that our Attorney General should not be subjected to political pressure or interference regarding the exercise of her prosecutorial discretion in criminal cases. Sadly, I have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with this matter and in how it has responded to the issues raised.

It grieves me to leave a portfolio where I was at work to deliver on an important mandate. But I must abide by my core values, my ethical responsibilities and constitutional obligations. There can be a cost to acting on one’s principles, but there is a bigger cost to abandoning them.

Although I must regretfully resign from Cabinet, I will continue to serve Canadians in every other way that I can. I was elected as a Liberal Member of Parliament for Markham-Stouffville and I intend to continue in that role. I am firmly committed to our crucial platform priorities, especially: justice for Indigenous peoples; and implementing a plan to tackle the existential threat of climate change. Canadians need the assurance that, in all matters, Members of Parliament will act in the best interests of the public. My decision has been made with that spirit and intent.


The Honourable Jane Philpott MD PC MP

Member of Parliament for Markham-Stouffville

49 thoughts on “Why Progressives are mistaken in defending Trudeau et al.

  1. Will Trudeau repeat himself regarding Philpott’s resignation as he did about JWR. I’m shocked. I wished she would have talked to me. I wonder how many more times he might be saying that soon. I hope so. Thanks Jane Philpott for your show of integrity and values and await more in cabinet to follow your’s and Jody’s code of honour.


    1. And yet some Liberals still think SNC should get a break….actually ‘entitled’ is the term used here…https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-entitled-dpa-1.5042822

      Companies fold and jobs are lost often..what makes SNC jobs so special? Quebec ridings the LPC needs to win and thats it. Snc does extensive business ouside the country and will comtinue to do so. If they chose to leave it would show how fickle their loyalty is to Canadians.

      Let us not forget they are under a new investigation as well. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/business.financialpost.com/news/snc-lavalin-faces-criminal-probe-over-montreal-bridge-contract-documents-reveal/amp


      1. It’s sure is a tragedy for Canada when politicians like Minister Steven McKinnon say’s SNC is entitled to a DPR. This guy is representitive of everything we’ve come to abhor about entitlement. To me that’s one disgusting politician. He may as well say I’m here to represent our party’s corrupt pals over justice. This jobs excuse by him and Trudeau to let off the criminal corporation, is really wearing thin. Trudeau’s remaining 33 cabinet minister say they support Trudeau. i wonder how true that really will stay over time. But if so, it’s a sad statement about many of our politicians and the working state of their moral compass.


        1. He sounded like Christy Clark, who I suspect is bolstering Trudeau to make way for a federal bid of some sort. Senate perhaps?


  2. Laila,
    I agree with everything you have said regarding SNC- Lavalin (Liberalin?) and Trudeau’s hypocrisy .

    However, I disagree that blind partisanship is the problem.
    Millions if not billions of dollars flow back and forth like the tide between Govt and business.
    Lobbyist money from corporations, unions, foreign govts(China? Russia?) flows into govt election campaigns and then is gratefully returned with contracts, construction projects or preferential tarde agreements.
    Money buys opinion.
    Democracy is a sham.
    Politicians whoring themselves to the highest bidder.
    And when they are out of office.
    Working for the very same people they were entrusted to oversee.
    So we have expensive, relentless, 24/7, misinformation ….
    Be it through the subservient MSM, neutered by the almighty advertising dollar or by paid hacks on the internet spewing vitriol to lather the circus mob.

    Money creates and then feeds blind partisanship.

    Walter Cronkite must be spinning in his grave at the demise of Free Speech.

    I’m just enjoying the complete and utter meltdown of Trudeau’s Polling numbers as first one, then two, high ranking, well spoken, intelligent, ETHICAL women …..walk out of the Liberal Cabinet cesspool into the light………. and Trudeau only has SNC election money to blame for his misfortune……

    Lobbyists take note.

    “because its 2019…..”


    1. Bang on. “Money creates and feeds blind partisanship”.

      Seriously Maxime Bernier promises to ‘dismantle the corrupt system’ ( sure….🙄)
      And people are eating that up not looking deeper at what he or his candidates are all about. His supporters make the CPC hanging out with Faith Goldy look moderate.

      The longer Trudeau drags this out and the more his supporters claim theres nothing to see when theres clearly a big problem, the more disillusioned voters grow and look to the Doug Ford type rhetoric which beguiles like a snake charmer.

      I really have a hard time understanding why so many dont see this.


      1. Well, if my friends are any indication.

        They have the attention span of fruit flies attracted to a light bulb in a dark room at night.


    1. Taken from your link:

      ” The official Liberal party line remains that Wilson-Raybould has somehow deluded herself into thinking she was being unduly pressured when subjected to weeks of insistence by Trudeau and his top aides and advisors that she abandon her own principles and do what the prime minister wanted. They saw no reason politics shouldn’t supersede inconvenient legalities, or why Wilson-Raybould, even if she disagreed with Trudeau’s determination to save Lavalin from prosecution one way or another, wouldn’t just play ball. They were willing, why wasn’t she?

      Philpott spells it out for them. They see it as just a matter of politics: sometimes you have to do dirty stuff to get a desirable result. She sees it differently.

      “The solemn principles at stake are the independence and integrity of our justice system,” she writes. “It is a fundamental doctrine of the rule of law that our Attorney General should not be subjected to political pressure or interference regarding the exercise of her prosecutorial discretion in criminal cases.”

      It beggars belief that she should have to explain this to the country’s prime minister. Why else do we elect governments if not to ensure they not only uphold the law, but grasp its most basic tenets?”

      Precisely. The law is the law. It is interpreted often and daily by lawyers and pundits, but as the tweet by Integrity BC details, thats pretty clear with little room for interpretation.

      Just because DPA’S are used elsewhere does not entitle SNC Lavalin to one here.


      1. SNC does not even qualify for a DPA or RA as worded when slipped through with the budget last year.

        The scary thing is they could still grant the DPA or change the terms to allow federal contracts. The feds and any provincial government dealing with SNC under those circumstances would do so at their peril.

        I choked on my lemon pie a couple of days ago, when I heard one liberal lackey lawyer say Jody Wilson-Raybould used the wrong word when she said she was “pressured.”

        Oh, ok then, that makes all the difference in the world; carry on.


  3. Great news!

    For SNC Lavalin that is….

    Horgan is ok with them bidding on the Patullo bridge replacement.


    Asked if he was comfortable having a company that’s under a cloud be on the Pattullo replacement shortlist, Horgan said he hadn’t been following events in Ottawa closely.

    “I don’t know in excruciating detail where SNC-Lavalin is in the legal process, but if there is anything that would compromise their ability to lawfully undertake work in British Columbia, then it won’t happen, but I can’t answer that today because I don’t know what the state of play is,” he said.

    SNC-Lavalin will be treated like any other company in the bidding process and whoever ends up doing the work will need to follow both British Columbian and Canadian law, added Horgan.

    “You’ve characterized them as what they are, ‘allegations’, and when they’re proven in court that might change how we would proceed,” he said. “We’re going to be cautious, of course, but I’m not going to eliminate them as a potential successful bidder because of allegations in another jurisdiction.”


    1. John Horgan sez:
      “SNC-Lavalin…will need to follow both British Columbian and Canadian law…”
      Right John, I’m dizzy from that spin. Obey the laws in BC like they’ve done in QC and other Canadian jurisdictions?

      John, I hope you know the excruciating detail of how a prosecution unfolds. Any law-breaking on the Patullo project would not see the inside of a courtroom for 15 years.
      I just realized, there are a couple of Victorians who are quite happy with the Ottawa bangarang; what’s the names again, Lenz and James?


  4. Also, this totally unrelated item caught my eye, and let me tell you why after you read this link:


    Sounds great. Preferential treatment for wealthy immigrant investors who commit to setting up shop in small towns for three years. What could go wrong, right??


    They did this in PEI to populate the province and very few entrepreneurs actually stayed and did what they were required to do. Others rented shops, put in some tables with ‘stock’on top and never opened. There was little anyone could do to monitor or enforce it and many wealthy immigrants used it solely as a fast track into Canada. It did virtually nothing as a long term program.

    And, the women who blew the whistle on it all, went through hell. It was just on w5.

    Those women are now suing the province et al


    Someone might want to send that to Ralston to ensure BC doesnt make the same mistakes.


  5. Another area is “students” coming over. All the incentives/grants and they’re supposed to attend college. A recently retired college instructor was telling us about these kids rarely showing up for class, getting money for rent etc., only to take jobs to send money back home. This instructor was disgusted in how “that system” is run, finally decided to bow out of it allow. Huge loss imp, for our education system. This $hit is throughout our government and its agencies. Appalling to see what is going on with Jody! Horgan and co., a$$holes too. Lost all respect for him and his entourage. Frickin politicians, the majority, bunch of nut bars. And SNC, corrupt to the bone I only. It’s time they get charged with something. Why are our governments so ignorant? Follow the money, follow the pay offs.


  6. Congratulations to Jody and Judy, government members with integrity. Don’t give up. You are absolutely correct in your stand!


    1. Snc lawyer urged to step down on Kinder Morgan pipeline consultations.



      Snc Lavalins lobbyist met with BC Ndp mla’s, Geoff Meggs and Rich Coleman last year to ” provide an understanding of the professional capabilities and expertise in the area designing, engineering, and construction of oil and gas projects.”

      Does SNC Lavalin have any current contracts or work with TMX?


        1. After listening to those two liars Butts and Wernick, the Government holding back requested information, or wanting to allow JWR to speak further in the house is shameful. But those two wastes of space in government Butts and Wernick have brought immorality in Canadian politics to new heights.


      1. Correction required. The following link


        Returns this.

        “Sorry. We can’t find the page you’re looking for.”

        For the correct link go to


        Beyond that?

        The Observer post is more fuel on an inferno.

        A tearful PM claims he wants a reconciliation with First Nations? Instead we see a farce. Choosing a lawyer representing SNC-Lavalin to negotiate with First Nations over their acceptance of a pipeline they don’t want? Classic Trudeau.

        Says who?

        “During an emergency debate about the SNC-Lavalin scandal on Feb. 28, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May stood in the House of Commons to muse about Iacobucci’s role in two key files it is juggling.”

        “Frank Iacobucci is not a shrinking violet. He is playing an interesting role here. I wonder if my friend finds it’s curious in any way that SNC-Lavalin’s lawyer was the choice of the prime minister to run the Indigenous consulations in the repairing of the flawed consultations on the Kinder Morgan pipeline,” she said, during an exchange in the Commons with Conservative MP Michael Barrett, who represents the Ontario riding of Leeds-Grenville-Thousand Islands. “And he is still playing that role, while he is also SNC-Lavalin’s lawyer.”

        “Barrett responded by saying that nothing surprises him at this point.”

        But there’s no conceivable conflict of interest?

        “The Trudeau government has denied any conflict of interest surrounding Iacobucci’s appointment, noting that the former judge is an esteemed member of the Canadian legal community.”

        “”There is no link or conflict between his role providing advice on the TMX file and his role providing advice to other clients on other files,” said Vanessa Adams, press secretary for Natural Resources Minister Amarjeet Sohi, confirming he was retained after the August 30 court ruling.”

        Business done as usual? Or more evidence that blatant Liberal dishonesty with later attempts to utilize statements of contrition will never restore this government to the standards required for public trust or respect?

        More from The Globe and Mail.


        “Similarly, in her resignation letter, Ms. Philpott said she would remain the member of Parliament for Markham-Stouffville and was still “firmly committed to our crucial platform priorities.” And, like Ms. Wilson-Raybould, Ms. Philpott wants to remain in the Liberal caucus, and plans to run in the next election.”

        “In other words, Ms. Philpott has not lost confidence in the Liberal Party, the Liberal platform, the Liberal record or the Liberal government. It is not a loss of confidence in the organization. It is a loss of confidence in its head.”

        “Mr. Trudeau still has time to address this challenge. But he has already lost four weeks.”


    1. Thats interesting!

      I was catching up, watching this glorious questioning by Charlie Angus of Wernick.

      Well done Charlie. They need to let Jody speak. Take off her gag Monsieur Trudeau, let her speak in her entirety beyond her shuffle.


  7. To find myself agreeing with a character assessment provided by Donald Trump is unsettling. But this morning Canada’s Prime Minister appeared to confirm Mr Trump’s description: a man who is, “Weak and a Liar”.

    Supporting evidence arrived this AM.

    Anticipating a media-circulated Profound Moment of Executive Contrition, I waited for this revelatory Mea Culpa to commence. Instead what followed was a random parade of inane denials, blame-shifting, issue evasions and, well, bullshit. It was an experience beyond anything I’ve witnessed since Richard Nixon’s best PR efforts were resolved into a final and defiant wave, “Goodbye!”.

    Today, during Mr Trudeau’s opening remarks, it quickly became apparent that it was not going to be a Great Day For Canada. As he has done with weapons sales to Saudi Arabia, the maltreatment of vets, the chronic abuse of First Nations, altruistic fantasies about what his subordinates did to appease SNC-Lavalin, our Leader again provided sheer nonsense in defence of himself, his minions, ignored the loss of his two best cabinet Ministers, and made evident his total rejection of a believable counter-story.

    Since his arguments bordered on the ludicrous, what suddenly appeared most interesting were Mr Trudeau’s “tells.”

    Why should advisers warn a public figure about what he does on camera? The example of Basil Fawlty comes to mind. It never occurs to Basil that people can see what he hopes they won’t.

    But Politics isn’t Poker, right? Isn’t it? Because as Mr Trudeau delivers an argument, if you watch his mouth closely it makes you wonder. Perhaps, when he thinks he’s scored points, or imagines he’s succeeded in acting out a difficult moment that might save him from reproach – he smirks: he seems briefly and frequently to gloat..

    Don’t believe it? Watch him on CSPAN. Over and over again he does the same thing.

    Even mid-way through a nicely choreographed counter-argument, to slide past a difficult question, the right corner of his mouth slides up, tipping those watching that perhaps this odd fellow may be viewing a movie. A saga with a protagonist battling against all comers, starring – who eles? – himself.. A movie only one person may enjoy immensely.

    As Ms Yuile maintains above, fearful progressives will shudder again faced with The Alternative.

    The usual submissive Liberal partisans (for whom Politics is the latest must-join Cult) will be enthralled and sufficiently credulous to be thrilled by what proved today to non-believers to be a ridiculous self-congratulatory 30 minute infomercial.

    Why offer a steadfastly uninformative and yet oddly pedantic exercise? Probably to fog over Big Liberal Electoral Problems.

    As in… What message could rebut the doubts of every voter already convinced that Jody Wilson-Raybould’s word is Solid Gold? What presentation could restore the electorate’s confidence among those in several provinces who now thoroughly doubt and discredit Mr Trudeau’s actions. promises and word? What sort of speech could prevent a negative approval landslide in the polls driven by those who already think – Canada made a huge mistake electing this guy.

    From what I’ve seen recently, yes Mr Trump, Our Ottawa Salvation is not exceptionally brilliant, seems incapable of telling anything resembling a complete truth; seems convinced that repeating “it’s all about Jobs!” redeems him; may be surrounded by fools who will guide him and the Liberal Party straight into the rocks.

    Justin Fawlty? A fellow perfectly willing to confirm the worst about himself without noticing that he has..

    Conclusion: Not a good day for partisans.


    1. Trumps a blathering moron.

      But brava for noticing what I was just about to write as well…Trudeau does have tells and that smirk is the same one Butts had yeserday in testimony..an ” God I’m amazing” moment they don’t realize shows. I really think he believes he is untouchable which is when any leader of any stripe begins to make mistakes.

      Trudeau also has another tell..and I wont say what it it, but it appears everytime hes worried…and he is worried.

      This was never about jobs. This was about profit and corporate access and influence. And the worst part is he truly doesnt get how elitist he comes across when he talks jobs…from a company facing serious charges that is still also under another, seperate invesigation. People arent stupid. Not many Canadians think SNC should get a hall pass on this. Whats next? Hall pass for Huawei ceo?

      David Akin had an excellent article up before this mornings presser and it remains true.


      I voted for Trudeaus team last election, knowing full well Mulcair could not win and Harper needed to go. But I wont vote LPC again under Trudeau and ilk.The patriarchal display of men circling the wagons around Trudeau was appalling.
      They didnt like her decision to uphold the choice to refuse a dpa, so urged her to get another opinion, to reconsider until she did make another decision. And as I pointed out in the post, under that section of the criminal code any and all other factors must not be considered.

      The CPC have continued closeness and support of individuals that hold racist and homophobic views which is intolerable to me so there is no way in hell I would vote for them.

      Doubtful the ndp can win federally nor will the Greens but the Greens have a great potential candidates here on island so that might be it.

      But damn. This is all just such pure,unmitigated shit.

      There is no other word for it. Just admit a mistake and deal with it. This inability to admit wrong is what increases cynicism and drive non party voters away. And that just upsets me even more!!


    2. Well stated E Random.

      A week or two ago, I pointed out to friends that I had finally found a Trump truth, going back to what he said about JT.

      Watching JT now just makes my skin crawl, not only because of the sleaziness but the wonderful role model he is being; lie, deny and if cornered, never apologize. Evil is a strong word, but close to fitting.

      Last night, I watched Power Play on CTV with Murray Rankin, Lisa Raitt and Liberal MP Jennifer O’Connell.

      I actually felt sorry for Ms. O’Connell who was obviously caught in a very deep pit and being forced to spew the liberal line. Though she did her job, I couldn’t help but feel, if she had any good in her at all, she must have had sweaty palms.

      What personal price is loyalty?

      At the same time, while I know absolutely nothing about Lisa Raitt, and would support no CPC member, I must say I am impressed with her doggedness on the SNC file.


      1. Good read here and a reader sent in a tweet from Tom Parkin I absolutely agree with.



        And this is part of what he is referring too.

        The improperly donated sums included: $83,534.51 to the Liberal Party of Canada; $13,552.13 to various Liberal riding associations; $12,529.12 to four contestants in the 2006 Liberal leadership race, including $5,000 each to Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae; $3,137.73 to the Conservative Party of Canada; and $5,050 to various Conservative riding associations.

        Jobs? Ha. There is far more to this.


      2. Another parallel I see is the one with the Hells Angels. Every time an HA member or associate gets busted, Rick Ciarniello trots out to say “the wrong doing of a member is not a wrong doing of HA.”

        This is the position of current SNC bass; a them not us scenario.

        Sorry, organized criminals are all the same.


  8. When i hear the garbage coming off the tongues of Butts, Wernick, Freeland, and now the master hypocrite and spinmeister Trudeau this morning is enough to make me gag. Ughh. Thought i might have needed gravol.


    1. Yes, here it is…

      Trudeau on Thursday March 07-19:

      “In a nationally televised news conference, Trudeau admitted he raised the SNC-Lavalin file at a Sept. 17 meeting with her, flagging he was an MP from a Montreal riding and was concerned that SNC-Lavalin jobs would be lost if the company were to be convicted in a criminal trial.

      “This is something that I was clear on, and then I asked her — even though I heard that she had made a decision, she indicated to me that she had made a decision — I asked her if she could revisit that decision, if she was open to considering to looking at it once again, and she said that she would,” Trudeau said.

      Jody Wilson-Raybould testimony:

      “This same day, Sept. 17, I have my one-on-one meeting with the prime minister that I requested a couple of weeks ago.
      When I walked in, the clerk of the Privy Council was in attendance as well.
      While the meeting was not about the issue of SNC and DPAs, the prime minister raised the issue immediately.
      The prime minister asked me to help out to find a solution here for SNC, citing that if there is no DPA, there would be many jobs lost and that SNC would move from Montreal.
      In response, I explained to him the law and what I have the ability to do and not do under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act around issuing directives or assuming conduct of prosecutions.
      I told him that I had done my due diligence and had made up my mind on SNC and that I was not going to interfere with the decision of the director.
      In response, the prime minister reiterated his concerns.
      I then explained how this came about and that I had received a Section 13 note from the DPP earlier in September and that I had considered the matter very closely.
      I further stated that I was very clear on my role as the attorney general and that I am not prepared to issue a directive in this case, that it would not be appropriate.
      The prime minister again cited the potential loss of jobs and SNC moving. Then, to my surprise, the clerk stated or started to make the case for the need for a DPA.
      He said: “There is a board meeting on Thursday, Sept. 20 with stockholders.” “They will likely be moving to London if this happens, and there is an election in Quebec soon.”
      At that point, the prime minister jumped in, stressing that there is an election in Quebec and that, “I am an MP in Quebec, the member for Papineau.”
      I was quite taken aback. My response, and I vividly remember this as well, was to ask the prime minister a direct question while looking him in the eye.
      I asked: “Are you politically interfering with my role, my decision as the attorney general? I would strongly advise against it.”
      The prime minister said: “No, no, no, we just need to find a solution.” The clerk then said that he spoke to my deputy and she said that I could speak to the director.
      I responded by saying, no, I would not. That would be inappropriate. I further explained to the clerk and the prime minister that I had had a conversation with my deputy about options and what my position was on the matter.
      As a result, I agreed to and undertook to the prime minister that I would have a conversation with my deputy and the clerk but that these conversations would not change my mind.
      I also said that my staff and my officials are not authorized to speak to the PPSC, and then we finally discussed the issue that I had asked for the meeting in the first place.
      I left the meeting and immediately debriefed with my staff about what was said with respect to SNC and DPAs


  9. So, there it is.
    By that little admission that he interfered and made it political, he is also admitting he has been lying all along.

    Gee, whoda guessed?


  10. https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/only-a-criminal-trial-will-reveal-whether-snc-lavalins-corruption-infected-the-government-too

    Perhaps the last place to seek impartial investigative reasoning or eye-opening clarity regarding what really is at stake in the SNC-Lavalin scandal is the Financial Press.

    Why not? For decades a normal presentation was excruciatingly deferential and simply too pathetically obsequious. Too Very Nice. Resulting in? One more boring, factless, shallow and ridiculous bit of Business Boosterism. Time and again another hyper-friendly puff-piece appeared where Executive X or Y “fights heroically” to “unfetter Commerce” and “open the flood gate of Jobs Forever”.

    Bless our men-in-suits for being so wonderful, one and all, they have inherited the earth. Amen.

    In short, after WW2 Canada’s media joined the rush to invent a form of pre-Apple westernized business “evangelism”. A daily template of Stalin-era Pravda and Izvestia corporate propaganda, moved west, to decorate and extol our rebranded, remarkably feudal, Politburo-Assisted Neo-Liberal blind-faith-in-platitudes fantasy Utopia..

    Deny the likelihood it or not, broadsides like Patricia Adams’ above keep appearing.

    Meanwhile? The rest of our amazingly timid or apparently lobotomized media carefully censors and contradicts itself, crooning and dancing away the hours during their, “he says \ she says \ who really cares? \ we’re too sophisticated to be more than bemused” … um, Tango..

    Not so from Ms Adams..To her the problem is blatant institutionalized Corruption. Unlike her flippant and mindless fellow scribblers she sees this as a deadly serious legal issue, not a trivialized debate over subjective interpretations of what was or wasn’t merely “appropriate”..

    The headline says it all.

    “Only a criminal trial will reveal whether SNC-Lavalin’s corruption infected the government, too”

    “Opinion: It would also expose who in government might have been involved”

    Enjoy the read…


  11. Excellent commentary Laila. Perhaps less mentioned is the divisive effect partisan factors is having on ordinary Canadians? It is a strange thing to hear supporters on both sides of SNC/ Attorney General debate deflect their comments away from the legal rigors that remain central to a well functioning government. Recrimination quickly replaces common sense and legal necessity, increasing the damage to/for everyone. How is it we can instinctively raise children to understand right from wrong, even when it ‘hurts’, but as adults, we often appear to be blithering idiots?


  12. I guess it it will be a long road of lies to election time from Trudeau and his team of schemers
    and spinners. Well, the other two party leaders will be playing the spin to win too.


  13. For anyone still enthusiastic about Our Current Leader, his respect for women, his integrity, honesty, humanity, transparency, openness to new ideas, charity, willingness to confess to errors, I can only offer this: Watch Question Period on CPAC.

    If one hour of sanctioned bedlam and faux-obtuse duplicitousness isn’t enough to sicken you? Watch several QPs.

    HINT: Keep Gravol handy.


    In the main the Problem with Question Period is that it in never results in and was not designed to be Answer Period.

    This regularly scheduled shambles is an object lesson where questions never asked are answered, carefully crafted lies are employed, repeated evasions create a stone wall. It is an exercise in applied deafness where the truth is subjected to deliberate misdirection. And, bless them, it all depends on 2 men of high personal regard.

    1/ Our self-confessed infallible Mr Trudeau (and probably the PMO) sanction, if not direct his minions to read from scripts [Hansard records these statements] probably to ensure the responses look reasonable when reproduced in print while completely devoid of context..

    2/ Mr Speaker, who, like it or not, completes the farce perfectly.

    Consider the process differently. Imagine the High Court of an esteemed and learned Judge. A person governed more by precedent than logic, who is more committed to retaining “Order!” than establishing what is true. As a democratic standard is this not batshit crazy?

    Is the purpose of Question Period inquiry to keep members in a kindergarten playpen from being silly, or to expose and then resolve various self-inflicted crises which flow from incompetent ministers at complete cross-purposes to the public interest?

    Mr Speaker, rationally, should be expected to inform any MP – “Parliament obliges you to answer the question asked, honestly and completely. Do so.”

    This never happens, which makes the process… an infantile farce.

    Why infantile?.

    Consider Mr Speaker as “Daddy Emeritus”. For reasons of habit all questions and answers are directed to him. This bit of nonsense is to inform his perfectly impartial self of conflicts, violations of regulations, and so on.

    Ideally all MPs and even the Prime Minister seek his final approval. Otherwsie why direct anything to a Speaker?

    Bad luck there. “Daddy” is more procedural robot than human. In no way does he show interest or vexation over whether a question is preposterous or an answer blatantly false. He may only comment on levels of noise. “Order!”“Order!”

    As someone with the potential to intervene when politicians dodge their responsibility to answer honestly, his presence is useless. The system is nonsense. There is no Answer Period, period.

    As to the current PR about Mr Trudeau’s undying respect and generosity towards women?


    “Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes says she was met with hostility and anger from Justin Trudeau when she told him she was leaving politics, prompting her to speak out about the Prime Minister’s behaviour. “

    “She turned to social media after Mr. Trudeau stated that real leadership is about listening, showing compassion and fostering an environment where caucus is comfortable coming to him with concerns. Ms. Caesar-Chavannes, who has repeatedly offered public support for Ms. Wilson-Raybould, said she felt he did not show those qualities in their personal discussions in recent weeks.”

    “Ms. Caesar-Chavannes said she told him that she hoped he could one day understand the impact that political life has had on her family. She said threats to her safety have been made against her in the past.”

    ““He was yelling. He was yelling that I didn’t appreciate him, that he’d given me so much,” Ms. Caesar-Chavannes said.”

    ““I went to him, I said, ‘Look I know our last conversation wasn’t the greatest but …’ And at that point I stopped talking because I realized he was angry,” she said.”

    ““Again, I was met with hostility. This stare-down … then him stomping out of the room without a word.””

    On pubic interest questions concerning respect for Honesty, Transparency, Integrity and simply being trustworthy, this is no longer a man who can point to a flawless history confirming Good Faith.

    Perhaps if more voters, including Ms Caesar-Chavannes, watched Question Period with a more critical eye all might better understand what to expect from our increasingly imperious, panicky and selectively deaf, Justin Fawlty.


Comments are closed.