OP Ed: Trudeau's SNC-Lavalin coverups

[The Romulan Republic]

But the other parties do matter, because they are the alternatives if the voters decide to punish the Liberals for this (as it appears that they will).

Personally, though, I could... not forgive Trudeau for being corrupt, but it honestly would have been a fairly minor issue to me, in the big scheme of things, when weighted against stuff like "Are refugees and Muslims going to be welcome in our country?" or "Will we keep steadily chipping away at our social safety net?" But I can't overlook his shear self-serving incompetence. Whether he himself committed any crime, his incredibly poor handling of this scandal has run the Liberal party into the ground in a manner which stands out for political self-destructiveness even in the era of Trump and Brexit, and his refusal to resign for the good of the party is pure selfishness at this point.

He has shown himself utterly unfit to lead, and I am pretty much resigned to a Conservative government (possibly even Con majority) with heavy Alt. Reich influences at this point. If I was in a riding where the choice was Liberal or a Right-wing candidate, I'd still vote Liberal because see above, but I'm deeply grateful that I'm not, and I will be rooting for the NDP (yeah, I know, but I can dream), and for Trudeau's removal from office.

[Tribble]

But the other parties do matter, because they are the alternatives if the voters decide to punish the Liberals for this (as it appears that they will).

I meant that more in the sense of avoiding the "whataboutism" trope that means to crop up and derail a lot of historical / political threads lately (and I'm just as guilty for perpetuating it though I do try to consciously avoid it). Yes there are plenty of things to discuss with the other parties and personalities like Doug Ford (and speaking of which I should update his thread soon, for like the one or two people who care ) That's not what this thread is primarily about though.

Personally, though, I could... not forgive Trudeau for being corrupt, but it honestly would have been a fairly minor issue to me, in the big scheme of things, when weighted against stuff like "Are refugees and Muslims going to be welcome in our country?" or "Will we keep steadily chipping away at our social safety net?" But I can't overlook his shear self-serving incompetence. Whether he himself committed any crime, his incredibly poor handling of this scandal has run the Liberal party into the ground in a manner which stands out for political self-destructiveness even in the era of Trump and Brexit, and his refusal to resign for the good of the party is pure selfishness at this point.

He has shown himself utterly unfit to lead, and I am pretty much resigned to a Conservative government (possibly even Con majority) with heavy Alt. Reich influences at this point. If I was in a riding where the choice was Liberal or a Right-wing candidate, I'd still vote Liberal because see above, but I'm deeply grateful that I'm not, and I will be rooting for the NDP (yeah, I know, but I can dream), and for Trudeau's removal from office.

Well, there is still time for him to resign and for Sheer to say and/or do something equally stupid.

[The Romulan Republic]

No argument here.

It's just sad to see such a deficit of leadership these days. It can't be that hard to find a few people willing to run for high office who are a) reasonably charismatic, b) not raging bigots or sociopaths, and c) not self-destructively incompetent to an almost cartoonish level.

[Jub]

You forgot d) not dying of cancer. I think Layton could have made a good PM if he'd survived long enough to get the chance.

[Tribble]

No argument here.

It's just sad to see such a deficit of leadership these days. It can't be that hard to find a few people willing to run for high office who are a) reasonably charismatic, b) not raging bigots or sociopaths, and c) not self-destructively incompetent to an almost cartoonish level.

Annnnnnd here's Trudeau's response aka keep blaming anyone but yourself and hope things go away:

Michael Wernick never briefed Trudeau that he spoke with Wilson-Raybould: PMO

The Justice Committee has released a 17-minute phone call between former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould and Privy Council clerk Michael Wernick. Mike Le Couteur has more.

The Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) said the clerk of the Privy Council Office (PCO) never briefed Justin Trudeau on his talk with ex-attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, that was captured on a recording released on Friday.
In a statement to Global News, the PMO also said it was “unaware of the full contents of this recording before today.”

The statement emerged amid the release of a recording in which Wilson-Raybould could be heard telling Michael Wernick, the outgoing clerk of the PCO, that she was concerned about the appearance of political interference if she were to override the director of public prosecutions and offer SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA).
In their phone conversation, which took place in December 2018, Wilson-Raybould told Wernick that “this conversation, previous conversations I’ve had with the PM and people around him are entirely inappropriate. It is political interference.”

The recording backs up most of Wilson-Raybould’s testimony before the parliamentary justice committee, in which she alleged that Wernick made “veiled threats” against her with regard to a prosecution deal for the Quebec-based engineering company.

During the conversation, Wernick could be heard telling Wilson-Raybould that the prime minister was in a “mood” about this matter and that, “I think the way he sees it and the advice he’s getting is you still have things you can do that are entirely lawful.”
Wernick also said, “he’s in a pretty firm frame of mind about this so I’m a bit worried.”
“A bit worried about what?” Wilson-Raybould responded.
“It’s not a good idea for the PM and his attorney general to be at loggerheads,” Wernick said. He added that the prime minister “doesn’t have the power to do what he wants, all the tools are in your hands.
Wernick has denied making any threats to her.

In the statement, the PMO said the prime minister “should have spoken directly with the former justice minister and attorney general about this matter — and wishes that she had come to him.”
The PMO went on to say that there was “clearly an erosion of trust over the past few months between PMO, the clerk of the Privy Council, and the former justice minister and attorney general.”

The PMO concluded by saying, “all the facts are on the table now, and everyone involved has shared their perspective, including the prime minister. We are focused on moving forward as a team on the issues that matter to Canadians and governing in the best interests of the country.”
The tape came as part of a submission package in which Wilson-Raybould also relayed concern that her successor, now-Justice Minister David Lametti, could offer SNC-Lavalin the deal that she refused to help them secure.
Wilson-Raybould acknowledged that it was wrong to record her conversation with Wernick, but she said she did that because she was worried that the conversation would be inappropriate — and that it could follow the pattern of the exchanges she had with others in parliament.
— With files from Amanda Connolly

https://globalnews.ca/news/5113193/pmo- ... -raybould/

Ya, sure, we totally believe that you were never informed about the conversation. Even though the entire point of the conversation by your Privy Council was to tell the Attorney General about your opinion. And you just so happened to shuffle your attorney general a few weeks later. Total coincidence

Hell, you know what? Even if (big if) Trudeau is entirely telling the truth here this statement is an inappropriate response because he is still trying to shirk any responsibly for the mess. What he should be saying if he wanted to salvage any credibility is something along the lines of "whatever mistakes have been made are ultimately my responsibility as prime minster."


Oh and in related news I haven't even talked about the attempted smear of Raybould by "someone" happening to leak (false!) confidential details about her trying to nominate a supreme court judge that was "too conservative" for the PM. I say false because the judge in question later stated he stepped down from the nomination process due to his wife's ailing health. The whole point of the exercise seems to have been to imply that the rift between them was much sooner and thus Trudeau was totally justified in being skeptical of her later decisions and sacking her and everything!

Wilson-Raybould calls for investigation into confidentiality breaches in the Supreme Court appointment process

Former federal justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould is calling for an investigation into confidentiality breaches over the Supreme Court appointment process. It was reported this week that she recommended a Manitoba judge for chief justice of Canada’s highest court and that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau rejected that recommendation.
Separately, Conservative justice critic Lisa Raitt said it appears “sources close to the Prime Minister” were behind the breaches. Ms. Raitt said Wednesday that the confidentiality breaches are another case of “potential political interference” after the Prime Minister’s Office pressed Ms. Wilson-Raybould on the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.
Justice Minister David Lametti, who replaced Ms. Wilson-Raybould in that role in January, tweeted several hours after his predecessor’s call for an investigation that he was "concerned by the publication of details of the most recent #SupremeCourt justice selection. The integrity of our process depends on confidentiality for all parties involved. Canadians should have complete confidence in the administration of justice.” However, when his office was asked how it would deal with the matter, a spokesman replied: “Nothing to add to the tweet.”
A spokeswoman for the Prime Minister’s Office denied it had any involvement in the breaches of confidentiality. “We take the integrity of our institutions seriously,” Chantal Gagnon said in an e-mail. “The PMO would never leak who would be considered for a judicial appointment.”
Reflecting the importance put on preserving the judicial candidates’ privacy, members of the independent advisory board that screens Supreme Court applicants are required to sign confidentiality agreements. The Trudeau government created the process. The leaks involve deliberations at a stage in the process after the board chose a shortlist for the Prime Minister’s consideration.

The dispute over leaks from that process comes after Ms. Wilson-Raybould publicly accused the Prime Minister and senior officials of putting improper pressure on her when she was attorney-general to support a negotiated settlement for Quebec engineering company SNC-Lavalin, which faces charges of bribery and fraud.
The Globe and Mail first reported allegations of political interference on Feb. 7; Ms. Wilson-Raybould told a Commons committee late last month that she had come under sustained pressure for four months. She was moved to Veterans Affairs in January, and resigned from cabinet in February.
Ms. Wilson-Raybould said Wednesday that she could not comment on whether the news reports about her recommendation were accurate. “I do feel compelled to say that I have not − as some have suggested − been the source of any of these stories, nor have I ever authorized any person to speak on my behalf,” she said in a statement. “I strongly condemn anyone who would speak about or provide information on such sensitive matters.”
She said she supports “some kind of investigation” into the leaks, because they “could compromise the integrity of the appointment process.”

This week, CTV and The Canadian Press reported that Mr. Trudeau had questioned Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s judgment after she proposed installing Chief Justice Glenn Joyal of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench as Supreme Court chief justice, replacing Beverley McLachlin, who retired. Instead, Mr. Trudeau chose Justice Richard Wagner to be Chief Justice, and Alberta Court of Appeal Justice Sheilah Martin to fill the position Ms. McLachlin had vacated from the West.

Chief Justice Joyal has given speeches outlining a conservative judicial philosophy. He issued a statement earlier this week saying he had withdrawn from consideration during the process for personal reasons related to his wife’s health.
The Globe later confirmed Ms. Wilson-Raybould’s recommendation and reported that it was part of a broader plan in which the first Indigenous chief justice of a superior court would have been appointed to fill the position left vacant by Chief Justice Joyal.
Ms. Raitt called on the federal agency that oversees the appointment process to investigate the confidentiality breaches. But Marc Giroux, who heads the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs, said that while he is deeply troubled by the confidentiality breaches, his agency has no authority to investigate them. His office provides administrative support to government in the Supreme Court appointment process.
A “plain reading of the facts” led Ms. Raitt to conclude someone near the Prime Minister leaked confidential information about Supreme Court appointments to the media, thus damaging judicial independence and the reputation of the judges involved, she said.
“If this is indeed true, it is an egregious case of political interference and one that severely injures the independence of the judiciary,” Ms. Raitt said in a publicly released letter to Mr. Giroux.
“Further it casts a cloud over the appointments of Justice Sheilah Martin and Chief Justice Richard Wagner, both of whom were appointed instead of Judge Joyal, and harms the perceived objectivity of Judge Joyal’s past and future judgments.”

Mr. Giroux said in his reply that his agency is an intermediary between the judiciary and executive, but unlike other federal agencies, lacks investigatory power.
The leaks have distressed the Canadian legal community. The Manitoba Bar Association, in a statement by its president, Mark Toews, said that comments criticizing Chief Justice Joyal as homophobic and anti-abortion − as former Liberal MP Sheila Copps described him in a tweet − are completely wrong.
He added: “It is, in the end, highly regrettable that Chief Justice Joyal was forced to respond and disclose deeply personal and confidential information.”
Emma Cunliffe, who teaches at the Allard School of Law at the University of British Columbia, said she was appalled by the confidentiality breaches. “The process only works if everybody has faith in its integrity and its confidentiality,” she said in an interview.
On Tuesday, Ms. Wilson-Raybould submitted 44 pages of additional information to the justice committee to rebut testimony from previous witnesses including Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, and Mr. Trudeau’s former principal secretary, Gerald Butts.
The documents, which include copies of e-mails and text messages, have to be translated into French before they are provided to committee members and released to the public. That could take as late as Friday afternoon.

In a March 21 letter to Liberal MP Anthony Housefather, chair of the justice committee, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said her submission will also include “relevant facts and evidence in my possession that further clarify statements I made and elucidate the accuracy and nature of statements by witnesses in testimony that came after my testimony.”

I almost missed this with all the other crap hitting the fan.

You forgot d) not dying of cancer. I think Layton could have made a good PM if he'd survived long enough to get the chance.

Ya, even people who didn't like Layton's policies admit he had class.

[The Romulan Republic]

You forgot d) not dying of cancer. I think Layton could have made a good PM if he'd survived long enough to get the chance.

True that.

="Tribble"

snip Trudeau stuff.[/quote]

I don't know if Trudeau is telling the truth. Politically, it probably doesn't matter now. He's burned any public goodwill and willingness to give him the benefit of the doubt.

The smart thing to do would have been to resign as PM weeks ago, letting someone else take over leadership of the party. Hell, that wouldn't even have to be a permanent defeat. He could still have run as an MP, and he's still a fairly young man. Plenty of time for a come-back.

Instead he dug his heals in, and didn't even manage to cover-up or spin the story effectively.

Idiot.

[Solauren]

Working in the Federal Government of Canada (and previously in the Government of Ontario).

It's actually not unheard of, in the upper levels, for someone with something to prove, to NOT tell a superior they talked to someone on their behalf.
Or to make a phonecall they know they shouldn't, or flat out are not allowed to. Or do something they shouldn't, or not do something they do.

i.e Federal MPS are not allowed to call tax collectors on behalf of a debtor, but it does happen. Usually someone looking for their first re-election, and during an election cycle.

The inevitable result is someone else having to clean up their mess.

This is just happening publicaly, at the highest levels of government.

[The Romulan Republic]

Trudeau doubles down, expels Wilson-Raybould and Philpott from Liberal caucus:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/libera ... -1.5080880

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has expelled Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott from the Liberal caucus, saying that trust with the two former cabinet ministers has been irreparably broken.

Trudeau delivered the news to the national Liberal caucus in Ottawa Tuesday night, saying the two could not stay on because they could not express confidence in the caucus.

"The trust that previously existed between these two individuals and our team has been broken, whether it's taping conversations without consent, or repeatedly expressing a lack of confidence in our government or me personally as leader," he said.

"It's become clear that Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Dr. Philpott can no longer remain part of our Liberal team."

Trudeau said he came to power determined to end the Liberal infighting that had dogged the party in the past. He said civil wars damage parties because they make Canadians believe politicians care more about internal party politics than serving the public.

"Our political opponents win when Liberals are divided," he said. "We can't afford to make that mistake. Canadians are counting on us."

Trudeau said it's wrong for any politician to secretly record a conversation, but called it "unconscionable" that an attorney general would tape a conversation with the country's top civil servant — a reference to Wilson-Raybould's release last week of a recording of a phone conversation she had with Clerk of the Privy Council Michael Wernick in December.

This political drama has been unfolding since Feb. 7, when the Globe and Mail reported that Wilson-Raybould had faced inappropriate political pressure on the SNC-Lavalin criminal prosecution decision. Trudeau said Tuesday he approached the issue with "patience and understanding" but eventually concluded the two MPs could not remain in the caucus.

He met with the caucus executive and leadership before informing Wilson-Raybould and Philpott today of his decision.

Liberal MPs gave Trudeau a standing ovation after his remarks turned into a campaign-style speech, and many expressed "absolute support" for the prime minister and his decision. Several also said they were saddened by the way things unfolded and the fact they had lost two colleagues.

Wilson-Raybould tweeted the news before Trudeau addressed the caucus.

"I have just been informed by the prime minister of Canada that I am removed from the Liberal caucus and as the confirmed Vancouver Granville candidate for the Liberal Party of Canada in the 2019 federal election," Wilson-Raybould tweeted.

Later, the B.C. MP said she is reflecting on what Trudeau "has done" and will talk to supporters "about what happens next." She thanked those "who believed in a new way of doing politics."

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott they can no longer sit as Liberal MPs 0:33

"What I can say is that I hold my head high and that I can look myself in the mirror knowing I did what I was required to do and what needed to be done based on principles and values that must always transcend party," Wilson-Raybould said on Twitter. "I have no regrets. I spoke the truth as I will continue to do."

Philpott, who was considered one of the most respected and competent members of Trudeau's cabinet, said the development was "profoundly disheartening."

Read statements from Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott on their expulsion from Liberal caucus
First Nations leaders condemn Wilson-Raybould's removal from caucus
"Rather than acknowledge the obvious — that a range of individuals had inappropriately attempted to pressure the former attorney general in relation to a prosecutorial decision — and apologize for what occurred, a decision was made to attempt to deny the obvious — to attack Jody Wilson-Raybould's credibility and attempt to blame her," she wrote in a Facebook post.

"That approach now appears to be focused on whether JodyWilson-Raybould should have audiotaped the clerk instead of the circumstances that prompted JodyWilson-Raybould to feel compelled to do so."

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said the Liberals have chosen to "condemn colleagues who spoke truth to power and to prop up a prime minister who is drowning in scandal."

"Canadians will view the removal of Jane Philpott and Jody Wilson-Raybould from the Liberal caucus for exactly what it is: a betrayal of justice," Scheer said in a statement. "Elected officials are supposed to protect individuals who blow the whistle on government misconduct and corruption, not punish them."

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh said Wilson-Raybould and Philpott wanted to do politics differently by putting integrity ahead of partisan interests.

"Today, PM Trudeau and the Liberal government showed us exactly what they think about integrity. Thank you Jody for being loyal to Canadians. You deserve better," he tweeted.

Conservative Pierre Polievre and NDP Jenny Kwan give the initial reaction from the Opposition 0:32
Earlier today, Wilson-Raybould wrote a two-page letter to the national caucus, acknowledging many of them are "angry, hurt and frustrated."

"And frankly so am I, and I can only speak for myself," Wilson-Raybould wrote. "I am angry, hurt and frustrated because I feel and believe I was upholding the values that we all committed to. In giving the advice I did, and taking the steps I did, I was trying to help protect the prime minister and the government from a horrible mess."

She also defended her actions on the SNC-Lavalin file.

"I am not the one who tried to interfere in sensitive proceedings, I am not the one who made it public, and I am not the one who publicly denied what happened," she says in the statement.

She said the Liberals promised to break "old and cynical patterns" of centralizing power in the hands of a few unelected staffers and marginalizing backbench MPs.

"If indeed our caucus is to be a microcosm of the country, it is about whether we are a caucus of inclusion or exclusion; of dialogue and searching for understanding or shutting out challenging views and perspectives; and ultimately of the old ways of doing business, or new ones that look to the future."

Earlier Tuesday, Ontario Liberal MPs met to debate whether to kick Wilson-Raybould and Philpott, the former Treasury Board president, out of the caucus. Philpott, who resigned cabinet early last month after saying that she'd lost confidence in the government's handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair, attended the beginning of the meeting, then left, saying she wanted to show respect for her colleagues who were engaged in a sensitive discussion.

Several Liberals have publicly condemned Wilson-Raybould for taping her Dec. 19 conversation with Wernick. The clerk did not know he was being recorded.

The 17-minute audiotape was submitted as evidence to the Commons justice committee Friday.

Andrew Scheer
✔
@AndrewScheer
By kicking Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott out of caucus, the Liberals have sent Canadians a clear message: If you tell the truth, there is no room for you in the Liberal Party of Canada. My full statement: https://www.facebook.com/AndrewScheerMP ... =3&theater …

Last month, Wilson-Raybould appeared before the Commons justice committee to answer questions about a Globe and Mail report citing unnamed sources that alleged she was pushed by senior officials in the Trudeau government to allow Quebec engineering firm SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal prosecution on fraud and bribery charges by meeting a number of conditions laid out in a remediation agreement.

Once before the committee, Wilson-Raybould told MPs she had been improperly pressured by 11 officials in the Prime Minister's Office to reverse a decision that denied SNC-Lavalin access to such an agreement.

Wilson-Raybould said late Monday that she wanted to remain in the Liberal caucus and saw no reason why she should be expelled.

"I do not believe that I should be removed from caucus for doing my job and for doing what I believe is right," she told reporters as she left the House of Commons.

Liberals on the Commons justice committee used their majority Tuesday to defeat a Conservative motion that would have called Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and several of his top aides to testify on the SNC-Lavalin matter.

Alberta Conservative MP Michael Cooper, who tabled the motion, accused the Liberal members of being "agents of the PM."

"Not surprisingly, but disappointingly once again, the Liberals shot down our motion to hear from all of the key players in the SNC-Lavalin matter," he said.

"It's clear that if we're getting to the truth, we need to hear from all the key players, yet again it's clear they are in control, doing the bidding of the PMO and so they shut that opportunity down."

Liberal MP and committee chair Anthony Housefather said there have been plenty of opportunities for people to put their information forward.

"We agreed to stop oral meetings, but we've accepted submissions that have come in, in writing, to the committee and we've accepted them and make them public," he said.

Read Wilson-Raybould's letter to the Liberal caucus:

Jesus Motherfucking Christ. No taking of responsibility. No letting it go. Just punishing those who don't toe the line or who personally embarrass you. Justin, your problem isn't that Wilson-Raybould and Phillipot have lost the confidence of the party- its that you've lost the confidence of the country. Congratulations: rather than show any contrition, you have now reached a level of behavior that I can only describe as "Donald-esque".

[The Romulan Republic]

I am so fucking happy right now that I live in a riding where the Liberals and Cons are virtual non-entities and I can happily vote NDP or Green, rather than having to choose between Alt. Reich Lite and this wanker. Because given that choice, I'd have to choose this wanker, and I really, really don't want to do that.

[mr friendly guy]

Maybe Trudeau could challenge another politician to a boxing match again. That's obviously the best way Trudeau knows to solve disputes. Proceeds go to help out Canada's canola farmers.

[Tribble]

I am so fucking happy right now that I live in a riding where the Liberals and Cons are virtual non-entities and I can happily vote NDP or Green, rather than having to choose between Alt. Reich Lite and this wanker. Because given that choice, I'd have to choose this wanker, and I really, really don't want to do that.

The big issue here is that Trudeau and the Liberals portrayed themselves as paragons of virtue, so its all the more aggravating when it becomes clear that's not the case.

The things the Liberal leaders will no doubt learn from this scandal are:

Absolute loyalty is the only real thing that matters.
Make sure the people you appoint aren't smarter than you, otherwise you could be outwitted later on.
If you think someone won't be 100% obedient to you on a particular issue, shuffle them or sack them before they can cause problems.
Try not to get caught when you do something shady.
If you do get caught doing something shady, nip the investigations and protests in the bud by spinning it into something positive and/or necessary right away rather than continue to try and bury it.
Always blame the opposition for a witch hunt whenever they protest something rather than blaming you and/or your party.

[The Romulan Republic]

It just keeps getting better and better for Trudeau- Philpott is now arguing that he broke the law by expelling her and Wilson-Raybould from the Liberal caucus:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/philpot ... -1.4372091

OTTAWA -- Independent MP Jane Philpott says that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contravened the law that governs Parliament and impeded on MPs' rights when he expelled her and colleague Jody Wilson-Raybould from the Liberal caucus.

But the Liberals are pushing back, saying that at the start of this Parliament the Liberal caucus -- including Philpott and Wilson-Raybould -- agreed to opt out of adopting the part of the law in question.

Philpott rose in the House of Commons on Tuesday morning on a question of privilege arguing that her rights as an MP, and those of fellow former cabinet minister Wilson-Raybould, have been breached.

The pair was removed by Trudeau last week, with the backing of Liberal MPs who said that the trust between the Liberal team and these two once-prominent faces on Trudeau's front bench had been "broken" over the course of the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Both Philpott and Wilson-Raybould resigned from cabinet amid the controversy and have continued to offer additional information or commentary on the matter.

Philpott is arguing that Trudeau contravened the Parliament of Canada Act because the Liberal caucus did not hold a vote that was legally required at the beginning of this Parliament to determine how caucus expulsions would be handled, and because he ultimately made the decision to remove them without a caucus vote.

"Expulsion should not be his decision to take unilaterally, however the decision had been already made," Philpott said, referencing Trudeau's comments to the national caucus that were televised last Tuesday when he announced their ouster.

The rules in question were passed into law in the last Parliament as part of the Reform Act, which was aimed at empowering MPs over party leadership.

Specifically, the package of amendments passed in 2015 state that at the start of each Parliament each caucus is supposed to vote on whether or not it wants to adopt a series of rules related to the expulsion and re-entry of MPs into their caucuses, and matters related to party leadership.

One of these rules, if adopted, would require MPs to vote on whether or not a colleague should be expelled from their caucus.

In the Liberals' case, the initial vote whether or not to opt in to the rules within the Reform Act did not occur, meaning the caucus did not adopt the bill’s requirement to have a majority vote in order to expel members.

Now, Philpott is arguing that not holding those initial votes at the start of this Parliament is part of how Trudeau has contravened the law, and how he and his office "deprived members of their rights" to determine whether MPs should be expelled and "denied members being considered for expulsion or readmission the right to a due process, one that is not ad-hoc, not arbitrary, nor unlawful."

Trudeau said Tuesday that despite there not being a formal vote, at the start of this Parliament the Liberal caucus did send a letter to the Speaker expressing the "will of caucus" in regards to these rules.

Had the caucus agreed at the start of this Parliament to put expulsions to a vote, last Tuesday’s decision to remove the two women would've required 90 Liberal MPs voting in favour.

Trudeau is defending his decision saying that while there was not a vote, the "will of caucus was very clear."

"I can reassure everyone and say very clearly to both Dr. Philpott and Ms. Wilson-Raybould that I consulted extensively with caucus over the proceeding weeks, in the day before and the day of, I talked with all caucus regional chairs and the will of caucus was very, very clear that they wanted the two individuals removed from caucus. It was my decision to make but the fact that the caucus was clear and united on that made my decision easier," he said.

Some Liberal MPs are publicly disputing Philpott's claim that her rights have been breached.

Quebec Liberal MP Marc Miller said the Liberal caucus had agreed to not require caucus votes to expel MPs since the start of this Parliament, and was comfortable leaving the decision around expulsions up to Trudeau.

"That was something that Ms. Philpott and Ms. Wilson-Raybould were more than ready to accept for the past four years. They're fully entitled to make any claims they want in Parliament for their own purposes… I would invite them to look at the way they’ve agreed to behave under the last four years inside our caucus and there was no complaints during that period," Miller said.

"From my understanding and from my participation… we followed the rules and procedures consistent with the legislation that was passed," said Ontario Liberal MP Adam Vaughan.

The Reform Act was a controversial initiative spearheaded by Conservative MP Michael Chong. Last week Chong raised a series of similar questions to those Philpott has raised. On Tuesday Chong said the Liberals broke the law back in 2015 when the caucus did not follow the Reform Act's requirements, and that any Liberal caucus ousters have been done "under questionable authority" and “now the chickens have come home to roost.”

In raising the question of privilege, Philpott wants House of Commons Speaker Geoff Regan to rule on the matter in the name of "procedural fairness," though it remains unclear whether that’s within his jurisdiction.

On Monday deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton delivered a ruling on a similar question raised by Conservative MP David Sweet about fellow Liberal MP-turned Independent Celina Caesar-Chavannes, who left the caucus on her own accord. That ruling stated that the Speaker could not weigh in on the possible expulsion of MPs from a caucus, and that the Speaker has "no role in the interpretation of statute nor in the conduct of these 2015 provisions."

Philpott said that because she and Wilson-Raybould were expelled, the situation is unique.

"With respect it is our view that this does not relieve you of your responsibility to ensure that all members are aware of their rights in this place… Accordingly a remedy is required for our situation, this matter is urgent," Philpott told the Speaker.

The Speaker's office said Tuesday that it has taken Philpott’s point under advisement and if there is more to her question than has already been ruled on, the Speaker will deliver a ruling. Should the Speaker find merit in her point, the entire House will have to consider next steps.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said she agrees that the Parliament of Canada Act was broken in this case, but how that potential breach can be enforced remains unclear.

"These are basically new rules, just passed in the 41st Parliament in order to ensure that leaders didn’t have so much power over their individual members," said May.

Wilson-Raybould told CTV News that she will not be rising on a point of privilege today.

The Liberals fight among themselves, and the Neo-Fascists celebrate. What an utterly pathetic cluster fuck.

[Tribble]

It just keeps getting better and better for Trudeau- Philpott is now arguing that he broke the law by expelling her and Wilson-Raybould from the Liberal caucus:

https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/philpot ... -1.4372091

OTTAWA -- Independent MP Jane Philpott says that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau contravened the law that governs Parliament and impeded on MPs' rights when he expelled her and colleague Jody Wilson-Raybould from the Liberal caucus.

But the Liberals are pushing back, saying that at the start of this Parliament the Liberal caucus -- including Philpott and Wilson-Raybould -- agreed to opt out of adopting the part of the law in question.

Philpott rose in the House of Commons on Tuesday morning on a question of privilege arguing that her rights as an MP, and those of fellow former cabinet minister Wilson-Raybould, have been breached.

The pair was removed by Trudeau last week, with the backing of Liberal MPs who said that the trust between the Liberal team and these two once-prominent faces on Trudeau's front bench had been "broken" over the course of the SNC-Lavalin scandal. Both Philpott and Wilson-Raybould resigned from cabinet amid the controversy and have continued to offer additional information or commentary on the matter.

Philpott is arguing that Trudeau contravened the Parliament of Canada Act because the Liberal caucus did not hold a vote that was legally required at the beginning of this Parliament to determine how caucus expulsions would be handled, and because he ultimately made the decision to remove them without a caucus vote.

"Expulsion should not be his decision to take unilaterally, however the decision had been already made," Philpott said, referencing Trudeau's comments to the national caucus that were televised last Tuesday when he announced their ouster.

The rules in question were passed into law in the last Parliament as part of the Reform Act, which was aimed at empowering MPs over party leadership.

Specifically, the package of amendments passed in 2015 state that at the start of each Parliament each caucus is supposed to vote on whether or not it wants to adopt a series of rules related to the expulsion and re-entry of MPs into their caucuses, and matters related to party leadership.

One of these rules, if adopted, would require MPs to vote on whether or not a colleague should be expelled from their caucus.

In the Liberals' case, the initial vote whether or not to opt in to the rules within the Reform Act did not occur, meaning the caucus did not adopt the bill’s requirement to have a majority vote in order to expel members.

Now, Philpott is arguing that not holding those initial votes at the start of this Parliament is part of how Trudeau has contravened the law, and how he and his office "deprived members of their rights" to determine whether MPs should be expelled and "denied members being considered for expulsion or readmission the right to a due process, one that is not ad-hoc, not arbitrary, nor unlawful."

Trudeau said Tuesday that despite there not being a formal vote, at the start of this Parliament the Liberal caucus did send a letter to the Speaker expressing the "will of caucus" in regards to these rules.

Had the caucus agreed at the start of this Parliament to put expulsions to a vote, last Tuesday’s decision to remove the two women would've required 90 Liberal MPs voting in favour.

Trudeau is defending his decision saying that while there was not a vote, the "will of caucus was very clear."

"I can reassure everyone and say very clearly to both Dr. Philpott and Ms. Wilson-Raybould that I consulted extensively with caucus over the proceeding weeks, in the day before and the day of, I talked with all caucus regional chairs and the will of caucus was very, very clear that they wanted the two individuals removed from caucus. It was my decision to make but the fact that the caucus was clear and united on that made my decision easier," he said.

Some Liberal MPs are publicly disputing Philpott's claim that her rights have been breached.

Quebec Liberal MP Marc Miller said the Liberal caucus had agreed to not require caucus votes to expel MPs since the start of this Parliament, and was comfortable leaving the decision around expulsions up to Trudeau.

"That was something that Ms. Philpott and Ms. Wilson-Raybould were more than ready to accept for the past four years. They're fully entitled to make any claims they want in Parliament for their own purposes… I would invite them to look at the way they’ve agreed to behave under the last four years inside our caucus and there was no complaints during that period," Miller said.

"From my understanding and from my participation… we followed the rules and procedures consistent with the legislation that was passed," said Ontario Liberal MP Adam Vaughan.

The Reform Act was a controversial initiative spearheaded by Conservative MP Michael Chong. Last week Chong raised a series of similar questions to those Philpott has raised. On Tuesday Chong said the Liberals broke the law back in 2015 when the caucus did not follow the Reform Act's requirements, and that any Liberal caucus ousters have been done "under questionable authority" and “now the chickens have come home to roost.”

In raising the question of privilege, Philpott wants House of Commons Speaker Geoff Regan to rule on the matter in the name of "procedural fairness," though it remains unclear whether that’s within his jurisdiction.

On Monday deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton delivered a ruling on a similar question raised by Conservative MP David Sweet about fellow Liberal MP-turned Independent Celina Caesar-Chavannes, who left the caucus on her own accord. That ruling stated that the Speaker could not weigh in on the possible expulsion of MPs from a caucus, and that the Speaker has "no role in the interpretation of statute nor in the conduct of these 2015 provisions."

Philpott said that because she and Wilson-Raybould were expelled, the situation is unique.

"With respect it is our view that this does not relieve you of your responsibility to ensure that all members are aware of their rights in this place… Accordingly a remedy is required for our situation, this matter is urgent," Philpott told the Speaker.

The Speaker's office said Tuesday that it has taken Philpott’s point under advisement and if there is more to her question than has already been ruled on, the Speaker will deliver a ruling. Should the Speaker find merit in her point, the entire House will have to consider next steps.

Green Party Leader Elizabeth May said she agrees that the Parliament of Canada Act was broken in this case, but how that potential breach can be enforced remains unclear.

"These are basically new rules, just passed in the 41st Parliament in order to ensure that leaders didn’t have so much power over their individual members," said May.

Wilson-Raybould told CTV News that she will not be rising on a point of privilege today.

The Liberals fight among themselves, and the Neo-Fascists celebrate. What an utterly pathetic cluster fuck.

If the Liberals had any integrity Trudeau should have been the one forced to resign over this. I have zero sympathy for them.

And it's not like they are doing any better when it comes to challenging Sheer:

Scheer pushes Trudeau to sue him over SNC-Lavalin by making comments outside protection of House

Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer stood outside the House of Commons, without the immunity from lawsuits the chamber would afford him, and repeated word-for-word the March 29 press release on the SNC-Lavalin scandal that sparked the threat of legal action from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Mr. Scheer said he welcomes court proceedings over his statements, adding he would like to see the Prime Minister be required to testify under oath in a courtroom as part of the legal process.
The Prime Minister’s Office did not immediately respond to this move by Mr. Scheer, saying Mr. Trudeau will respond later this afternoon in Question Period.

Mr. Scheer says he’s eager to see Mr. Trudeau to take him to court over the SNC-Lavalin matter.
Mr. Trudeau’s lawyer, Julian Porter, wrote Mr. Scheer on March 31 saying his letter should be “treated as notice” of possible action under the Libel and Slander Act of Ontario.

Mr. Porter had pointed to a March 29 press release from the Conservative Leader that he said went "beyond the pale of fair debate and is libelous,” saying it was false to say Mr. Trudeau had actually interfered in the SNC-Lavalin criminal prosecution.
Mr. Scheer said he would welcome a battle in court after having Liberal-dominated parliamentary committees shut down hearings into the SNC-Lavalin affair.
“I welcome the opportunity …. So Canadians can finally have an inquiry where Justin Trudeau does not control the proceedings. Where he won’t be able to use his majority to shut down an investigation,” he told reporters.
“It would be ideal for Canadians to have Justin Trudeau himself testify under oath,” Mr. Scheer said. He would be “held personally accountable for his role in his affair."
In February, Ms. Wilson-Raybould testified before a Parliamentary committee that Mr. Trudeau’s office and senior official had politically interfered in the criminal prosecution of Montreal-based SNC-Lavalin, pressing her when she was attorney-general to abandon the matter in favour of a settlement. Both Ms. Wilson-Raybould and Ms. Philpott later quit cabinet over the government’s handling of the matter.

Mr. Trudeau’s suit is not the first example of Canadian political leaders calling lawyers to deal with accusations from rivals.
In 2008, then-prime minister Stephen Harper sued then-Liberal leader Stéphane Dion and the Liberal Party for libel. The action was over statements Mr. Harper knew of an alleged attempt to bribe Chuck Cadman, an independent MP dying of cancer, with a life-insurance policy in return for voting against the then-Liberal government in 2005. Mr. Harper dropped the lawsuit in early 2009, saying it was because Mr. Dion was no longer party leader.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politic ... -comments/

If Stephen Harper of all people couldn't pull off the threat of a lawsuit without it backfiring, why did Trudeau think he would do any better?

I am honestly laughing now over how inept they are. All Sheer had to do was call the bluff and Trudeau became trapped. If Trudeau proceeds with the lawsuit he and others will be forced to go under oath and testify, and given how hard they are trying to avoid a real investigation I'm sure they'd be roasted for it. On the other hand if they abandon the lawsuit I'm sure many people are going to conclude that Sheer is right - why else would the Liberals abandon the lawsuit if they thought they had a legitimate case?

Every time I think Trudeau has reached the limits of his stupidity he always seems to rise to the occasion and prove how wrong I was. Unfortunately in hindsight it seems like Harper's "he's just not ready" campaign against Trudeau had a lot of truth to it after all.

[The Romulan Republic]

The problem is that, unless the NDP suddenly turns into a party capable of winning a national election for the first time in history, its the Liberals or Trumpism Lite.

[aerius]

Every time I think Trudeau has reached the limits of his stupidity he always seems to rise to the occasion and prove how wrong I was. Unfortunately in hindsight it seems like Harper's "he's just not ready" campaign against Trudeau had a lot of truth to it after all.

Jesus, and I thought Kathleen Wynn was a clueless fuckup. There were so many chances for Trudeau to cut his losses and move on, but the fucking dumbass keeps doubling down on his losses. Someone needs to fucking gag him for a few months so that the adults can run some damage control and sort the shit out.

[The Romulan Republic]

What stuns me is that the rest of the Liberals aren't calling for a no confidence vote at this point. They're the ones he's dragging down with him right now. Are they just that committed to going down with the sinking ship?

[Tribble]

What stuns me is that the rest of the Liberals aren't calling for a no confidence vote at this point. They're the ones he's dragging down with him right now. Are they just that committed to going down with the sinking ship?

This is the consequence when you combine absolute party discipline with putting the leader on a pedestal and turning the party into little more than a cult of worship for him/her. As noted elsewhere there has been a trend in Canadian politics to giving the party leader more power, control and media attention at the expense of everything else, including the party and its policies/ideology. After failing to win with Martin Dion and Ignatiff the Liberals completely rebranded themselves with Trudeau and thus must sink or swim with him.

[Imperial Overlord]

What stuns me is that the rest of the Liberals aren't calling for a no confidence vote at this point. They're the ones he's dragging down with him right now. Are they just that committed to going down with the sinking ship?

They're not hurting badly enough for that to happen. Trudeau's personal numbers have taken a hit, but Sheer's and Singh's aren't moving upward so they can still win with him, especially if time helps diminish the sting and Doug Ford gives people more reasons not to vote Tory.

[The Romulan Republic]

What stuns me is that the rest of the Liberals aren't calling for a no confidence vote at this point. They're the ones he's dragging down with him right now. Are they just that committed to going down with the sinking ship?

They're not hurting badly enough for that to happen. Trudeau's personal numbers have taken a hit, but Sheer's and Singh's aren't moving upward so they can still win with him, especially if time helps diminish the sting and Doug Ford gives people more reasons not to vote Tory.

Maybe. And I actually hope that's correct, because as much as I'd like to see Trudeau and the Liberals punished for this, I want to see the Conservatives, who are increasingly friendly to Alt. Reich type crap, in power even less. Ideally we'd get an NDP government, but... yeah, that ain't likely.

But its difficult for time to diminish the effect when Idiot Justin keeps rubbing salt in the wounds.

[Tribble]

What stuns me is that the rest of the Liberals aren't calling for a no confidence vote at this point. They're the ones he's dragging down with him right now. Are they just that committed to going down with the sinking ship?

They're not hurting badly enough for that to happen. Trudeau's personal numbers have taken a hit, but Sheer's and Singh's aren't moving upward so they can still win with him, especially if time helps diminish the sting and Doug Ford gives people more reasons not to vote Tory.

Maybe. And I actually hope that's correct, because as much as I'd like to see Trudeau and the Liberals punished for this, I want to see the Conservatives, who are increasingly friendly to Alt. Reich type crap, in power even less. Ideally we'd get an NDP government, but... yeah, that ain't likely.

But its difficult for time to diminish the effect when Idiot Justin keeps rubbing salt in the wounds.

IMO the SNC scandal on its own would not be enough to sink Trudeau. However, it combined with the carbon tax certainly could. Yes, yes, taxing carbon is important. However from a political perspective forcing one on the provinces which have rejected it just months before an election may turn out to be a bad idea, especially if Alberta flips back to the conservatives.

[Coop D'etat]

Alberta isn't that important to Liberal reelection. The don't really need the 4 seats they got there. This is s big reason Albertan issues have such difficulty getting traction federally, very few swing seats so no party (not even the conservatives) makes that much of an effort to court their votes.

[Tribble]

Alberta isn't that important to Liberal reelection. The don't really need the 4 seats they got there. This is s big reason Albertan issues have such difficulty getting traction federally, very few swing seats so no party (not even the conservatives) makes that much of an effort to court their votes.

It's not just Alberta; Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick are all challenging the carbon tax too, and in Ontario's case after voting in a government to repeal the already existing cap-and-trade program. I'm not sure it's a good idea for the Liberals to slap on the carbon tax just 6 months before an election when half the provinces are actively fighting it and they are already plagued with the SNC scandal. IMO that's just giving yet more ammo for Scheer to use come election time.

[Coop D'etat]

Alberta isn't that important to Liberal reelection. The don't really need the 4 seats they got there. This is s big reason Albertan issues have such difficulty getting traction federally, very few swing seats so no party (not even the conservatives) makes that much of an effort to court their votes.

It's not just Alberta; Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick are all challenging the carbon tax too, and in Ontario's case after voting in a government to repeal the already existing cap-and-trade program. I'm not sure it's a good idea for the Liberals to slap on the carbon tax just 6 months before an election when half the provinces are actively fighting it and they are already plagued with the SNC scandal. IMO that's just giving yet more ammo for Scheer to use come election time.

The bet is that once people experience it and start getting the rebate checks most of them will end up liking it. Its also not the worst strategy in Canadian politics for a Federal leader to be fighting the Provinces, you pick up the support of the premier's opponents. Premiers and Prime Ministers fighting each other is on the first page of both positions job description.

In policy terms, the federal Liberals are probably more comfortable defending their overarching climate policy rather than a lot of other things the election could be about. Its a good way to marginalize the Greens, NDP and Bloc from the debate.

[Tribble]

Alberta isn't that important to Liberal reelection. The don't really need the 4 seats they got there. This is s big reason Albertan issues have such difficulty getting traction federally, very few swing seats so no party (not even the conservatives) makes that much of an effort to court their votes.

It's not just Alberta; Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick are all challenging the carbon tax too, and in Ontario's case after voting in a government to repeal the already existing cap-and-trade program. I'm not sure it's a good idea for the Liberals to slap on the carbon tax just 6 months before an election when half the provinces are actively fighting it and they are already plagued with the SNC scandal. IMO that's just giving yet more ammo for Scheer to use come election time.

The bet is that once people experience it and start getting the rebate checks most of them will end up liking it. Its also not the worst strategy in Canadian politics for a Federal leader to be fighting the Provinces, you pick up the support of the premier's opponents. Premiers and Prime Ministers fighting each other is on the first page of both positions job description.

In policy terms, the federal Liberals are probably more comfortable defending their overarching climate policy rather than a lot of other things the election could be about. Its a good way to marginalize the Greens, NDP and Bloc from the debate.

It's also a good way to lose an election should their strategy backfire; its not just the premiers they're fighting against, but a good chunk of the electorate who put those premiers in power.

[mr friendly guy]

On a slightly fun note and about the claim that "he is just not ready," Trudeau had a big brain fart a few days ago. Getting Japan confused with China. Twice. Doesn't make him look prime ministerial material if he stuffs up another relationship does it?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/trudea ... -1.5114457

I know the charitable interpretation is that relationships with the PRC has got to him, so China is on his mind. But why should we be charitable to him? All Asians look alike to Trudeau. To be fair to him, after he challenges his political opponents to a boxing match, they will all look alike after he has finished with them.