The SNC-Lavalin Scandal - Jody Wilson-Raybould Refuses to leave Office

[Gurn]

so a while back I posted a link to a cartoon of Trudeau and J Wilson-Raybould in a boxing ring. In this thread, or the election 2019 thread.

For some reason I can only search back 3 pages on my content screen so I'll leave my thoughts here.

Some folk got upset about the lady being taped and tied up, saying it promoted violence against women and native women in particular.

I'd asked "what makes this about her heritage as there was no way of seeing, in the cartoon, that she is native."

 

now out comes another cartoon, and now some folk are upset, saying her heritage has nothing to do with it.

Please make up your minds.      Thanks.

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/politics/que-political-cartoonist-sorry-for-feathers-and-fringe-portrayal-of-wilson-raybould/ar-BBUgTB0?ocid=spartandhp

For the second time in two weeks, a political cartoonist is apologizing for his depiction of former justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould in newspaper commentary on the SNC-Lavalin scandal.

Yannick Lemay, who draws under the name Ygreck in the Journal de Quebec, published a cartoon on March 1 portraying Wilson-Raybould and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in a boxing ring.

While the prime minister is in boxing attire, Wilson-Raybould is clad in leather fringe, moccasins and feathers and is wielding a tomahawk. The cartoon also appeared in the Journal de Montreal.

"I'm very sorry," said Lemay, after receiving many comments on Twitter in reaction to the cartoon.

"The purpose of the caricature is not to offend someone. If I offended someone with this drawing, obviously I'm sorry. I apologize."

The cartoon was in response to Wilson-Raybould's testimony on Wednesday at the House of Commons justice committee about SNC-Lavalin.

Wilson-Raybould recounted what she described as a well-orchestrated campaign by senior members of the Prime Minister's Office to pressure her to reach an agreement with SNC-Lavalin to help the Montreal-based engineering firm avoid criminal prosecution. 

Earlier in February, an image by a Halifax political cartoonist, also set in a boxing ring, showed Wilson-Raybould in one corner with tape over her mouth, tied up and sitting on a stool. It was criticized for its insensitivity to violence against women, especially Indigenous women.

"When I get up in the morning my goal is not to insult someone," said Lemay.

"I've learned a lot today. The next time I have to draw an Indigenous person, I will have to ask myself what are the appropriate ways to imagine someone of Indigenous ancestry now. I admit that I have not found it for the moment but it will come."

'They're blissfully ignorant'

Ellen Gabriel, a Mohawk activist and artist from Kanesatake, Que., called Lemay's depiction racist, irresponsible and demeaning. 

"They're blissfully ignorant," said Gabriel.

"There's so many opportunities today for them to really understand the realities we're facing. There's reports. There's all kinds of studies. There are all kinds of people who are speaking out about how colonization has impacted us."

She said bringing Wilson-Raybould's identity as an Indigenous woman into the issue was racist. 

"It is not a part of the issue," said Gabriel. "The issue is her role as the minister and attorney general, and what happened to her."

© Ygreck/Journal de Montreal The cartoon was in the March 1 issue of Journal de Montreal.

Harmful to Indigenous identities

Megan Kanerahtenhá:wi Whyte, a Mohawk artist and art therapist, said when non-Indigenous cartoonists stereotype Indigenous people, it is harmful for Indigenous people to reclaim their identity.

"Drawing a First Nations person in that way one-dimensionalizes First Nations people," said Whyte.

© Julia Page/CBC Human rights activist Ellen Gabriel is critical of the cartoon depicting Wilson-Raybould.

"It makes it that harder for people to reconnect with themselves because they don't look like that. It creates a lot of challenges, and stimulates that identity trauma that all communities face."

Whyte has been an editorial cartoonist at the Eastern Door newspaper in Kahnawake, Que., for a decade. She draws Mohawk people "just as people" in her cartoons almost every week the paper is published.

"Images are really powerful, and they can be very dangerous," Whyte said.

"I try to make Indigenous people not look like a stereotype with feathers or with leather, but to relate to the values or political issue that I'm portraying. When it becomes degrading to a population, I feel like that's where you should draw the line."

 

 

[VanGnome]

6 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

Good story here on deferred prosecution agreements and why Trudeau was pushing hard for one. 

 

A DPA is not a way to get a crooked company off the hook: It is a way to make sure it is rehabilitated, watched, and financially punished for what it did. All of that must be judicially approved and monitored. Should one of the long list of conditions be not respected, then criminal prosecution would continue, since it is only deferred as long as the terms are complied with. Individuals involved in any scheme, too, are personally prosecuted in a criminal court. In other words, DPAs aren’t soft on corruption – they’re ways to ensure a company has cleaned up and pays the public for its misdeeds.

The dominant narrative outside Quebec is that the Liberals are trying to save a corrupt Quebec company for partisan reasons. Granted, the fact that the Prime Minister is an MP for a Quebec riding, as he himself allegedly noted, is not a legal argument. But being from Montreal does give Mr. Trudeau a better sense of what SNC-Lavalin represents to this country, just as Stephen Harper did with our oil and gas industry. But more importantly, most of SNC-Lavalin’s Canadian staff, which had nothing to do with the alleged misdeeds from its executives, actually work and live outside Quebec. Trying to use legal tools to protect strategic economic corporations from bankruptcy or foreign takeover, especially one that’s woven into cities across the country, is not in itself unprincipled.

 

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-deferred-prosecution-agreement-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/

The issue is not the DPA in and of itself. I understand that it is a useful tool in SOME situations.

The issue is the apparent obstruction of justice that took place over the course of 4 months. The issue is also in HOW the Liberals amended the criminal code by slipping the provision into a budget omnibus bill (hilariously hypocritical since they went to great lengths to admonish the Harper government for utilizing omnibus bills as well), which shows that the intention for the DPA was not genuine or above board.

 

Quote

Obstructing justice

• 139 (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

  • (a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

  • (b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

  is guilty of

  • (c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

  • (d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

• Marginal note:Idem

  (2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.

• Marginal note:Idem

  (3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

  • (a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

  • (b) influences or attempts to influence by threats, bribes or other corrupt means a person in his conduct as a juror; or

  • (c) accepts or obtains, agrees to accept or attempts to obtain a bribe or other corrupt consideration to abstain from giving evidence, or to do or to refrain from doing anything as a juror.

I'm not a professionally trained lawyer, and I'm sure there are some here who are and can correct me if I'm wrong but my interpretation of the above is as follows:

The obstruction of justice does not take place in the direct interactions between the PMO, Finance Department and JWR, but rather if their political interference WERE successful in changing JWR's mind and she issued a directive to change the decision of the DPP (which even if done above board would have contravened the law since the justifications for doing so were not eligible for consideration), that would be obstruction of justice.

The alleged indemnification of JWR by Katie Telford vis a vis the comment about "lining up all kinds of people to write Op-Eds to support that what she was doing was proper" would constitute meeting subsection 3a, as giving any assurances to JWR to change her mind would ultimately result in evidence not being submitted as the prosecution would be deferred.

Where my understanding of the law comes into play, is what if any legal responsibility flows upward. If the decision is solely that of the Attorney General, does any tampering with the decision making of the Attorney General also fall under the umbrella of Obstruction of Justice due to the causative nature? By that I mean there would NOT be any obstruction of justice if political interference were not applied to successfully change the mind of the Attorney General, since it was clearly established that JWR had independently made a decision PRIOR to the interference taking place.

The Liberals who use the argument of it being appropriate to discuss job losses etc seem to be using it in the context of cabinet minister conversation and interaction, which of course JWR herself admitted was appropriate in the EARLY stages of such discussions. All of this pressure occurred AFTER JWR had come to her decision independently to support the decision of the DPP. There was one interesting note in the testimony that being "The individual crown prosecutor expressed interest in pursuing a DPA, but the Director of Public Prosecutions did not". That to me sounds like SNC-Lavalin or someone in the government had co-opted a specific prosecutor in the DPP but that individual had been over ruled by their boss.

It seems to me that the PMO tried to weasel their way through this using the arms length and independent nature of the DPP and the Attorney General as a way to not personally get their hands dirty. They would have some plausible deniability in that, if their methods were achieved and JWR did issue a directive which THEN came under fire and possible prosecution by the RCMP, JWR would be the sacrificial lamb to the slaughter. If nothing was brought forward publicly then everyone would have gotten away scot-free as they wouldn't have any need for resignations.

Let's suspend the obvious narrative and commentary for a moment, and take a moment to recognize something that also doesn't look good for JT et al. Let's say that JT was in the right, and JWR's allegations all turn out to be false. How would that reflect upon the PM having been personally responsible for the assignment of cabinet positions. JT would be responsible directly for jeopardizing the judicial integrity of Canada which speaks to his lack of judgement. Combine this penultimate lack of judgement to his previous lacks of judgement (India, GropeGate, Aga Khan, among others) a pattern begins to emerge.

Whether there is a corroboration of obstruction of justice or not, a clear case has been established for his unsuitability to be the Prime Minister of Canada, and that in and of itself should warrant his resignation. If obstruction of justice IS confirmed, whether by him or members of his staff, then it ALSO speaks to his lack of judgement in relying on such individuals and cultivating such a culture as to even allow this and all of the other scandalous things that have happened, even the remote possibility to exist.

[JM_]

34 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

The issue is not the DPA in and of itself. I understand that it is a useful tool in SOME situations.

The issue is the apparent obstruction of justice that took place over the course of 4 months. The issue is also in HOW the Liberals amended the criminal code by slipping the provision into a budget omnibus bill (hilariously hypocritical since they went to great lengths to admonish the Harper government for utilizing omnibus bills as well), which shows that the intention for the DPA was not genuine or above board.

 

I'm not a professionally trained lawyer, and I'm sure there are some here who are and can correct me if I'm wrong but my interpretation of the above is as follows:

The obstruction of justice does not take place in the direct interactions between the PMO, Finance Department and JWR, but rather if their political interference WERE successful in changing JWR's mind and she issued a directive to change the decision of the DPP (which even if done above board would have contravened the law since the justifications for doing so were not eligible for consideration), that would be obstruction of justice.

The alleged indemnification of JWR by Katie Telford vis a vis the comment about "lining up all kinds of people to write Op-Eds to support that what she was doing was proper" would constitute meeting subsection 3a, as giving any assurances to JWR to change her mind would ultimately result in evidence not being submitted as the prosecution would be deferred.

Where my understanding of the law comes into play, is what if any legal responsibility flows upward. If the decision is solely that of the Attorney General, does any tampering with the decision making of the Attorney General also fall under the umbrella of Obstruction of Justice due to the causative nature? By that I mean there would NOT be any obstruction of justice if political interference were not applied to successfully change the mind of the Attorney General, since it was clearly established that JWR had independently made a decision PRIOR to the interference taking place.

The Liberals who use the argument of it being appropriate to discuss job losses etc seem to be using it in the context of cabinet minister conversation and interaction, which of course JWR herself admitted was appropriate in the EARLY stages of such discussions. All of this pressure occurred AFTER JWR had come to her decision independently to support the decision of the DPP. There was one interesting note in the testimony that being "The individual crown prosecutor expressed interest in pursuing a DPA, but the Director of Public Prosecutions did not". That to me sounds like SNC-Lavalin or someone in the government had co-opted a specific prosecutor in the DPP but that individual had been over ruled by their boss.

It seems to me that the PMO tried to weasel their way through this using the arms length and independent nature of the DPP and the Attorney General as a way to not personally get their hands dirty. They would have some plausible deniability in that, if their methods were achieved and JWR did issue a directive which THEN came under fire and possible prosecution by the RCMP, JWR would be the sacrificial lamb to the slaughter. If nothing was brought forward publicly then everyone would have gotten away scot-free as they wouldn't have any need for resignations.

Let's suspend the obvious narrative and commentary for a moment, and take a moment to recognize something that also doesn't look good for JT et al. Let's say that JT was in the right, and JWR's allegations all turn out to be false. How would that reflect upon the PM having been personally responsible for the assignment of cabinet positions. JT would be responsible directly for jeopardizing the judicial integrity of Canada which speaks to his lack of judgement. Combine this penultimate lack of judgement to his previous lacks of judgement (India, GropeGate, Aga Khan, among others) a pattern begins to emerge.

Whether there is a corroboration of obstruction of justice or not, a clear case has been established for his unsuitability to be the Prime Minister of Canada, and that in and of itself should warrant his resignation. If obstruction of justice IS confirmed, whether by him or members of his staff, then it ALSO speaks to his lack of judgement in relying on such individuals and cultivating such a culture as to even allow this and all of the other scandalous things that have happened, even the remote possibility to exist.

So I'll start with the criminal code amendment 1st - thats not an issue. Omnibus bills are legal. Is it going back on your word not to use them? Yup. 

 

On obstruction, it isn't. It would only be obstruction, perversion (which means to act in a way to defeat justice) or outright defeating the course of justice IF they were asking her to drop the case. Thats not what happened here. They were asking her to consider another viable legal option. Its like stopping at a T-intersection. You can turn right or left, but you have to turn. 

 

For the political discussions, that too is legal because the AG is also the justice minister. The position has 2 hats, cabinet politician and attorney for the government. Political discussions and considerations by the nature of the position are going to happen, thats why there is discussion now about the potential need to split up the duties to two people like other countries have.

 

I totally disagree on the "arms length" part. Keep in mind 11 - eleven - different people approached her on this. Thats hardly trying to keep things on the quiet, and to me thats proof that a lot of people saw this as a viable choice for her to make and were asking her to do so, which is her call as minister. 

 

I agree that Trudeau mishandled the situation, particularly after JWR resigned, there's no doubt about that. But up to this point JWR did a great job. She's admitted that she doesn't think anything illegal happened. So this is about her personal line in the sand. To me thats not a reason to throw a grenade into the room on your way out, she clearly didn't like the political hat she was wearing but the fact is when you are in the inner cabinet, you must consider other regional issues, which she clearly was not willing to do in this case.

 

I don't think anyone can actually make a case for, or point to anything illegal being done. Does it look bad? Sure, it can be spun that way particularly if you want to take a SJW stance or are a CPC supporter. 

 

The deferred agreement option is the best one for Canadian jobs, thats undeniable as well. If there was nothing illegal going on I would think you'd want a PM fighting for jobs. 

 

 

[VanGnome]

59 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So I'll start with the criminal code amendment 1st - thats not an issue. Omnibus bills are legal. Is it going back on your word not to use them? Yup. 

 

On obstruction, it isn't. It would only be obstruction, perversion (which means to act in a way to defeat justice) or outright defeating the course of justice IF they were asking her to drop the case. Thats not what happened here. They were asking her to consider another viable legal option. Its like stopping at a T-intersection. You can turn right or left, but you have to turn. 

 

For the political discussions, that too is legal because the AG is also the justice minister. The position has 2 hats, cabinet politician and attorney for the government. Political discussions and considerations by the nature of the position are going to happen, thats why there is discussion now about the potential need to split up the duties to two people like other countries have.

 

I totally disagree on the "arms length" part. Keep in mind 11 - eleven - different people approached her on this. Thats hardly trying to keep things on the quiet, and to me thats proof that a lot of people saw this as a viable choice for her to make and were asking her to do so, which is her call as minister. 

 

I agree that Trudeau mishandled the situation, particularly after JWR resigned, there's no doubt about that. But up to this point JWR did a great job. She's admitted that she doesn't think anything illegal happened. So this is about her personal line in the sand. To me thats not a reason to throw a grenade into the room on your way out, she clearly didn't like the political hat she was wearing but the fact is when you are in the inner cabinet, you must consider other regional issues, which she clearly was not willing to do in this case.

 

I don't think anyone can actually make a case for, or point to anything illegal being done. Does it look bad? Sure, it can be spun that way particularly if you want to take a SJW stance or are a CPC supporter. 

 

The deferred agreement option is the best one for Canadian jobs, thats undeniable as well. If there was nothing illegal going on I would think you'd want a PM fighting for jobs. 

 

 

It all comes down to timing and context. As the minister of justice she would have been involved in all cabinet discussions regarding this topic. As the Attorney General, she must compartmentalize the desires of the government and the non-admissible economic impacts such as loss of jobs when making an independent decision, which in her testimony she said she did. Her decision to support the DPP came after allegedly, a member within the DPP opted in favor of a DPA, but their boss the Director of the DPP overrode and made the decision.

JWR's decision then "as the Attorney General", supported that of the DPP when taking all RELEVANT matters into consideration. It was not until AFTER these decisions were made that political interference was attempted. Once the matter moves from the cabinet table onto the desk of the Attorney General, ALL partisan considerations must be thrown out, even IF the individual in question is also a cabinet minister.

I do agree that both positions need to be assigned to separate individuals, as this would have avoided a lot of this mess. But it seems like the Liberals and the PMO considered JWR's position as Justice Minister and Member of Cabinet as the overriding position in this matter, when it is in fact the inverse.

As to having 11 people thinking it's a viable option... if 11 members of your family decided it was the best idea ever to down a mickey of Vodka, then hop into a fleet of Ferrari's at 2am and go cruising, would YOU as an individual think that was also the best course of action? It was her call as the Attorney General, not as the Minister of Justice to make the decision on whether to issue a directive or not.

I don't think this was a matter of her not liking the politics at all, in fact in one line of her testimony she said:
 

Quote

I told the clerk that I was giving him my best advice and that if he did not accept that advice, then it is the prime minister’s prerogative to do what he wants, but I am trying to protect the prime minister from political interference or perceived political interference or otherwise.

She was still clearly working in the interest of the government, so it's her fault that so many individuals were so dense as to not recognize what was going on? Keep in mind that the senior members of the PMO and the PM himself are NOT lawyers, she is and was a top prosecutor. If even one individual in the PMO or the PM himself had any semblance of a legal background, they would have known to accept her legal advice as the Attorney General, and drop the issue.

You do not need to be a SJW or a CPC supporter to suggest this is beyond bad, you only need to be someone with even a modicum of common sense and to look at things objectively, which I believe I have done and continue to still do.

Yes, the DPA IS the best option to save Canadian jobs. However, that is an expected and desired outcome which just so happens to be 100% inadmissible for consideration when determining the eligibility of a DPA per the actual law as written into the criminal code, however it was added. Yes, I will also agree that if nothing illegal was going on, I would want a PM that would fight for jobs, on the condition that that PM would RESPECT when a decision was made as to the ineligibility of a DPA, and that that PM fights for ALL Canadian jobs. Where was Trudeau when the auto sector was hit, or when the energy sector was hit? Those two sectors combined suffered an estimated DIRECT loss of 260,000 jobs over time (we need to see how tariffs affect job losses beyond the GM plant closure), and that is to say nothing of all of the associated jobs linked to those losses (suppliers, wait staff, etc). That is 28x MORE jobs lost than what was at risk if SNC-Lavalin, a single company amongst an entire sector had not gotten a DPA; TWENTY EIGHT TIMES!

You cannot on one hand say you stand up for jobs in the course of defending at the very least highly improper political conduct yet on the other do nothing as it pertains to the losses of nearly a quarter million or more jobs across multiple sectors of the economy.

This issue is not JWR the Cabinet Minister not taking into consideration the impacts of job losses, this issue IS about JWR the Attorney General concurring with the decision of an independent judicial branch of the government and not allowing that decision to be changed through immense attempts of coercion. No matter how many times they stressed the importance of job losses, or their (improper) political implications, it would never have and still does not change the FACT that SNC-Lavalin did not and continues to not qualify for a DPA according to the very two people AUTHORIZED to make those assessments.

[Gurn]

IF, JT does take a huge hit, the Liberal party merely has to have Freeland step in to the PM's job and she hires back JWB for the AG/JM job. Then the "newly revitalized" party cruises to victory in the upcoming election.

[VanGnome]

1 hour ago, gurn said:

IF, JT does take a huge hit, the Liberal party merely has to have Freeland step in to the PM's job and she hires back JWB for the AG/JM job. Then the "newly revitalized" party cruises to victory in the upcoming election.

Not necessarily. Freeland is just a female version of Trudeau, cut from the same virtue signaling cloth. I don't believe she has the chops to function as a PM, and if she is named party leader I think it just signals business as usual for the Liberal Party.

Unless the entire PMO staff resigns (not going to happen) I cannot see how the Liberals walk away from this cleanly. The stink is just as big as the sponsorship scandal during the Chretien administration. It look a long while for the Liberal Party to claw back from that. 

In fact, Freeland is quite likely worse than Trudeau, as she is openly chummy with George Soros.

Edited March 2, 2019 by VanGnome

[JM_]

2 hours ago, VanGnome said:

1 - Once the matter moves from the cabinet table onto the desk of the Attorney General, ALL partisan considerations must be thrown out, even IF the individual in question is also a cabinet minister.

2- As to having 11 people thinking it's a viable option... if 11 members of your family decided it was the best idea ever to down a mickey of Vodka, then hop into a fleet of Ferrari's at 2am and go cruising, would YOU as an individual think that was also the best course of action? It was her call as the Attorney General, not as the Minister of Justice to make the decision on whether to issue a directive or not.

I don't think this was a matter of her not liking the politics at all, in fact in one line of her testimony she said:
 

3 - She was still clearly working in the interest of the government, so it's her fault that so many individuals were so dense as to not recognize what was going on? Keep in mind that the senior members of the PMO and the PM himself are NOT lawyers, she is and was a top prosecutor. If even one individual in the PMO or the PM himself had any semblance of a legal background, they would have known to accept her legal advice as the Attorney General, and drop the issue.

Y4- ou do not need to be a SJW or a CPC supporter to suggest this is beyond bad, you only need to be someone with even a modicum of common sense and to look at things objectively, which I believe I have done and continue to still do.

5- Yes, the DPA IS the best option to save Canadian jobs. However, that is an expected and desired outcome which just so happens to be 100% inadmissible for consideration when determining the eligibility of a DPA per the actual law as written into the criminal code, however it was added. Yes, I will also agree that if nothing illegal was going on, I would want a PM that would fight for jobs, on the condition that that PM would RESPECT when a decision was made as to the ineligibility of a DPA, and that that PM fights for ALL Canadian jobs. Where was Trudeau when the auto sector was hit, or when the energy sector was hit? Those two sectors combined suffered an estimated DIRECT loss of 260,000 jobs over time (we need to see how tariffs affect job losses beyond the GM plant closure), and that is to say nothing of all of the associated jobs linked to those losses (suppliers, wait staff, etc). That is 28x MORE jobs lost than what was at risk if SNC-Lavalin, a single company amongst an entire sector had not gotten a DPA; TWENTY EIGHT TIMES!

You cannot on one hand say you stand up for jobs in the course of defending at the very least highly improper political conduct yet on the other do nothing as it pertains to the losses of nearly a quarter million or more jobs across multiple sectors of the economy.

6- This issue is not JWR the Cabinet Minister not taking into consideration the impacts of job losses, this issue IS about JWR the Attorney General concurring with the decision of an independent judicial branch of the government and not allowing that decision to be changed through immense attempts of coercion. No matter how many times they stressed the importance of job losses, or their (improper) political implications, it would never have and still does not change the FACT that SNC-Lavalin did not and continues to not qualify for a DPA according to the very two people AUTHORIZED to make those assessments.

1 - this is actually not true. They can and do have partisan discussions all the time. There's no law against that. 

 

2- no, i wouldn't drink the vodka because they said so ( I'd do it because I like it, but thats for a different thread) but I couldn't claim that it was something that they were trying to hide, now could I? 11 people, their aides, the meeting schedules, etc. Hardly deep throat in a parking lot now is it?

 

3- she was doing her job, the others were doing their job too. There's nothing inherently wrong with bringing up an issue to her thats important to your riding.

 

4- "beyond bad"? care to explain whats "beyond bad" legally?

 

5- saving the auto sector is out of the control of the PM. Asking the SNC case to be moved to a different legal option is in his control. 

 

6- now you're trying to bring in a new legal term, coercion, you are the 1st person I've seen use that particular term. No one coerced her to do anything. 

[VanGnome]

19 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

1 - this is actually not true. They can and do have partisan discussions all the time. There's no law against that. 

 

2- no, i wouldn't drink the vodka because they said so ( I'd do it because I like it, but thats for a different thread) but I couldn't claim that it was something that they were trying to hide, now could I? 11 people, their aides, the meeting schedules, etc. Hardly deep throat in a parking lot now is it?

 

3- she was doing her job, the others were doing their job too. There's nothing inherently wrong with bringing up an issue to her thats important to your riding.

 

4- "beyond bad"? care to explain whats "beyond bad" legally?

 

5- saving the auto sector is out of the control of the PM. Asking the SNC case to be moved to a different legal option is in his control. 

 

6- now you're trying to bring in a new legal term, coercion, you are the 1st person I've seen use that particular term. No one coerced her to do anything. 

1 - I never said it was illegal. I said that when decisions are made from a legal perspective, the individual in question making the decision if they are also the Justice minister, needs to compartmentalize the difference between partisan considerations and purely legal and relevant matters in the process of making such a decision. The fact that JWR did make the decision she did, and to stand by it shows she has unparalleled (in relation to her political colleagues) integrity.

2 - You conveniently refuse to mention the particular motivations for their seemingly unanimous decision on the best course of action: impact of job loss (inadmissible when determining the eligibility of a DPA. Political considerations, ie the impact it may have on a Quebec Provincial election and for the Liberals during the upcoming Federal election (also inadmissible when determining the eligibility of a DPA).

3 - Yes, she was doing her job. They would have been doing their jobs if these discussions had taken place BEFORE the DPP and Attorney General had made their decisions, not AFTER.

4 - Your quote: "I don't think anyone can actually make a case for, or point to anything illegal being done. Does it look bad? Sure, it can be spun that way particularly if you want to take a SJW stance or are a CPC supporter." I said you don't need to be either an SJW or CPC supporter, nor do you need to "spin this" to make it "beyond bad". Surely you can grasp the context of "beyond bad", I shouldn't have to define that for you. The point I was making is that it doesn't "look bad" or "appear bad" it is BAD, end of discussion. It reflects poorly on the party, on the PM, on the PMO and sets such a low bar that just about anyone with a conscience and a heart beat would be able to act in a better manner and with a higher level of integrity than they have shown, and in some cases have shown consistently to be of poor integrity.

5 - Asking is one thing. Applying a full court press to change the decision of the Attorney General is all together entirely different.

6 - Figure it out.
Coercion: "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats".
Veiled: "not openly or directly expressed; masked; disguised; hidden; obscure: a veiled threat".
Threat: "a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

I get it that you're a Liberal apologist, but please try not to be so disingenuous when it comes to objectively discussing the merits of this entire situation.

[Toews]

2 hours ago, VanGnome said:

1 - I never said it was illegal. I said that when decisions are made from a legal perspective, the individual in question making the decision if they are also the Justice minister, needs to compartmentalize the difference between partisan considerations and purely legal and relevant matters in the process of making such a decision. The fact that JWR did make the decision she did, and to stand by it shows she has unparalleled (in relation to her political colleagues) integrity.

2 - You conveniently refuse to mention the particular motivations for their seemingly unanimous decision on the best course of action: impact of job loss (inadmissible when determining the eligibility of a DPA. Political considerations, ie the impact it may have on a Quebec Provincial election and for the Liberals during the upcoming Federal election (also inadmissible when determining the eligibility of a DPA).

3 - Yes, she was doing her job. They would have been doing their jobs if these discussions had taken place BEFORE the DPP and Attorney General had made their decisions, not AFTER.

4 - Your quote: "I don't think anyone can actually make a case for, or point to anything illegal being done. Does it look bad? Sure, it can be spun that way particularly if you want to take a SJW stance or are a CPC supporter." I said you don't need to be either an SJW or CPC supporter, nor do you need to "spin this" to make it "beyond bad". Surely you can grasp the context of "beyond bad", I shouldn't have to define that for you. The point I was making is that it doesn't "look bad" or "appear bad" it is BAD, end of discussion. It reflects poorly on the party, on the PM, on the PMO and sets such a low bar that just about anyone with a conscience and a heart beat would be able to act in a better manner and with a higher level of integrity than they have shown, and in some cases have shown consistently to be of poor integrity.

5 - Asking is one thing. Applying a full court press to change the decision of the Attorney General is all together entirely different.

6 - Figure it out.
Coercion: "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats".
Veiled: "not openly or directly expressed; masked; disguised; hidden; obscure: a veiled threat".
Threat: "a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

I get it that you're a Liberal apologist, but please try not to be so disingenuous when it comes to objectively discussing the merits of this entire situation.

Hilariously hypocritical coming from someone that needs to evoke George Soros in order to discredit Freeland. Other than wingnuts on the right that is going to scare away absolutely no one. 

[VanGnome]

20 minutes ago, Toews said:

Hilariously hypocritical coming from someone that needs to evoke George Soros in order to discredit Freeland. Other than wingnuts on the right that is going to scare away absolutely no one. 

Soros is but the most concerning relationship.

How about her and Trudeau's insistence on bringing gender equity issues to the USMCA negotiations in the US?
How about Freeland leaving the middle of the USMCA negotiations to be the keynote speaker in a feminist oriented, anti Trump conference?
How about Freeland grandstanding and virtue signaling like no other with a Saudi refugee, demanding respect for the individual's privacy, yet being perfectly content with hauling her out in front of cameras and journalists?
How about Freeland having the audacity to quote "A good deal for Canada" when Canada got absolutely romped in the USMCA, despite Trump being an absolute moron yet Trudeau and Freeland were so inept that even he got the upper hand on them.

Soros is a known globalist, and if that's where you want to put the future of Canada then by all means that's your prerogative. The amount of leftism love on these forums is hilariously laughable. Harper was no better, neither is Scheer. Canada has been run in a two party dictatorship since 1982.

Trudeau Sr was a self proclaimed communist, and did a lot to form original ties with China and Russia back in the '70s. Trudeau Jr appears to be no better. If you want to live in ignorance, have at it. Keep drinking the kool-aid because eventually, whatever you think your reality is will very suddenly shift and you'll be left wondering how things got to where they did.

I won't even get into Canada's atrocious foreign affairs record under Freeland.

Edited March 3, 2019 by VanGnome

[Toews]

6 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

Soros is but the most concerning relationship.

How about her and Trudeau's insistence on bringing gender equity issues to the USMCA negotiations in the US?
How about Freeland leaving the middle of the USMCA negotiations to be the keynote speaker in a feminist oriented, anti Trump conference?

Couldn't care less about either. The USMCA negotiation was a joke and the end result was about as good as I could hope.

6 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

How about Freeland grandstanding and virtue signaling like no other with a Saudi refugee, demanding respect for the individual's privacy, yet being perfectly content with hauling her out in front of cameras and journalists?

Taking the Saudis lass and rubbing their noses into it made me feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside. It was the perfect response to Saudi Arabia's petulant threats.

6 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

How about Freeland having the audacity to quote "A good deal for Canada" when Canada got absolutely romped in the USMCA, despite Trump being an absolute moron yet Trudeau and Freeland were so inept that even he got the upper hand on them.

"romped" lmao and you accused Jimmy of being unable to be objective. By the same vein only a hyperpartisan CPC fanboy would believe this tripe.

6 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

Soros is a known globalist, and if that's where you want to put the future of Canada then by all means that's your prerogative. The amount of leftism love on these forums is hilariously laughable. Harper was no better, neither is Scheer. Canada has been run in a two party dictatorship since 1982.

Trudeau Sr was a self proclaimed communist, and did a lot to form original ties with China and Russia back in the '70s. Trudeau Jr appears to be no better. If you want to live in ignorance, have at it. Keep drinking the kool-aid because eventually, whatever you think your reality is will very suddenly shift and you'll be left wondering how things got to where they did.

I won't even get into Canada's atrocious foreign affairs record under Freeland.

Soros is a right wing boogeyman. I give him zero thought but I do admire him for his ability to live rent free in so many people's heads. Maybe he just likes to own the cons.

[Warhippy]

37 minutes ago, VanGnome said:

Soros is but the most concerning relationship.

How about her and Trudeau's insistence on bringing gender equity issues to the USMCA negotiations in the US?
How about Freeland leaving the middle of the USMCA negotiations to be the keynote speaker in a feminist oriented, anti Trump conference?
How about Freeland grandstanding and virtue signaling like no other with a Saudi refugee, demanding respect for the individual's privacy, yet being perfectly content with hauling her out in front of cameras and journalists?
How about Freeland having the audacity to quote "A good deal for Canada" when Canada got absolutely romped in the USMCA, despite Trump being an absolute moron yet Trudeau and Freeland were so inept that even he got the upper hand on them.

Soros is a known globalist, and if that's where you want to put the future of Canada then by all means that's your prerogative. The amount of leftism love on these forums is hilariously laughable. Harper was no better, neither is Scheer. Canada has been run in a two party dictatorship since 1982.

Trudeau Sr was a self proclaimed communist, and did a lot to form original ties with China and Russia back in the '70s. Trudeau Jr appears to be no better. If you want to live in ignorance, have at it. Keep drinking the kool-aid because eventually, whatever you think your reality is will very suddenly shift and you'll be left wondering how things got to where they did.

I won't even get into Canada's atrocious foreign affairs record under Freeland.

So is your alternative Scheer?

 

If so have I got some baaaad news for you regarding his past involvements statements and beliefs

[406in604]

48 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

So is your alternative Scheer?

 

If so have I got some baaaad news for you regarding his past involvements statements and beliefs

His turn.

[VanGnome]

12 hours ago, Warhippy said:

So is your alternative Scheer?

 

If so have I got some baaaad news for you regarding his past involvements statements and beliefs

Not sure if you saw a previous post, but I specifically stated that Harper and Scheer are no better, cut from the same cloth as Trudeau. Canada has been managed by a 2 party "dictatorship" for more or less it's entire history as a country. The first iterations were highly devoted to the crown because we were still subject to royal rule, since roughly 1931 with the Wesminster Accord (if memory serves), the individual provinces and territories reclaimed much of their sovereignty to allow for the formation of a true republic, but that power has never been exercised.

Canada existed from around 1931 to 1982 in a state of semi allegiance to the Crown until Pierre Trudeau decided to put Canada down a socialist/communist path by repatriating the "constitution".

It's only been a little less than 37 years, which historically speaking is such an insignificant amount of time, but we've already seen IMO Canada's political peak and it has not ben impressive at all. We're on the downward trend relative to the bell curve, things are going to get a lot messier moving forward. Never mind subverting Canada's sovereignty by dutifully adopting UN "non binding" resolutions into our own immigration laws (I hate that term because its a nothing statement. It's only used to give the illusion that we have a choice, but we don't. Any such resolution gets implemented into our laws and it's imposed upon the populace).

The point is looking at things objectively, if you look at the respective actions of Governments from 1982 through today, you see a clear path of linearity. It's a slow creep toward communism, evident in the crony capitalism (not true free market capitalism) were big business are ushered favors by Government via bailouts, lucrative contracts and down right scandalous contract issuance (Chretien era sponsorship scandal).

We see flippant use of public resources for personal gain (Mike Duffy), back room deals to further political and economic interests not in the interest of people but that of the government (Harper, TPP). We see overwhelming allowance of foreign money to come into the country and set up shop (china through the abuse of Quebec and other PNP programs, real estate and corporate foreign ownership), and playing politics with this recent Huawei rubbish (which is just grand standing, the Government knows full well that the extradition will not go through, they're using this as an opportunity to "stick it to Trump"). Now we have this SNC-Lavalin crap.

We don't have true democratic rule, we have a two-tiered structure that favors those who are connected and wealthy, and then everyone else. Meanwhile, there are a lot of average folks to don't pay too close attention to politics, and even a lot who do that get wrapped up in the fuzzy warm blanket of the left. Politics is intrinsically designed to divide, us vs them. Left vs Right. There is no such thing as distinct "identity politics" because by definition politics are based on identity. Choose your side, draw your line in the sand. Admonish the other side, protect your tribe because if you're not with us, you're against us.

What makes this political existence tolerable is the integrity of good men and women doing the right thing despite the allure of abuse of power. Actually governing in the people's best interests, not their own. I have no doubt that there is some self serving aspect to JWR, she's not a saint and I'm not making her out to be, but it was refreshing to see her exercise some moral integrity and throw a wrench into the machine of Trudeau's ill conceived plans.

I would not be surprised if she (JWR) made a power grab for leadership of the party and begins to push a strong feminist/aboriginal agenda which compared to eroding standard of living through mass importation of the 3rd world is really not so bad provided it does not go too far, but if her current actions are anything to go by then I have confidence that she would be able to bring a degree of levelheadedness to Canadian federal politics that is desperately needed.

I don't particularly care what the party alignment is of the governing party, I'm not always going to agree with the policies of the Liberals OR the Conservatives, what I look for is the exercise of pragmatism, responsibility, fairness and above all integrity. What I do care about is when "ideologies" are allowed to govern instead of common sense. When I talk about "leftism" I talk about the innocent ignorance of a lot of people to get caught up in the virtue signaling "cons bad, orange man bad" rhetoric. I want people to see things for what they are and realize that it does not boil down to us vs them, or left vs right or the people vs the government, but rather its a huge melting pot and the only constant is compromise.

[JM_]

18 hours ago, VanGnome said:

1 - I never said it was illegal. I said that when decisions are made from a legal perspective, the individual in question making the decision if they are also the Justice minister, needs to compartmentalize the difference between partisan considerations and purely legal and relevant matters in the process of making such a decision. The fact that JWR did make the decision she did, and to stand by it shows she has unparalleled (in relation to her political colleagues) integrity.

2 - You conveniently refuse to mention the particular motivations for their seemingly unanimous decision on the best course of action: impact of job loss (inadmissible when determining the eligibility of a DPA. Political considerations, ie the impact it may have on a Quebec Provincial election and for the Liberals during the upcoming Federal election (also inadmissible when determining the eligibility of a DPA).

3 - Yes, she was doing her job. They would have been doing their jobs if these discussions had taken place BEFORE the DPP and Attorney General had made their decisions, not AFTER.

4 - Your quote: "I don't think anyone can actually make a case for, or point to anything illegal being done. Does it look bad? Sure, it can be spun that way particularly if you want to take a SJW stance or are a CPC supporter." I said you don't need to be either an SJW or CPC supporter, nor do you need to "spin this" to make it "beyond bad". Surely you can grasp the context of "beyond bad", I shouldn't have to define that for you. The point I was making is that it doesn't "look bad" or "appear bad" it is BAD, end of discussion. It reflects poorly on the party, on the PM, on the PMO and sets such a low bar that just about anyone with a conscience and a heart beat would be able to act in a better manner and with a higher level of integrity than they have shown, and in some cases have shown consistently to be of poor integrity.

5 - Asking is one thing. Applying a full court press to change the decision of the Attorney General is all together entirely different.

6 - Figure it out.
Coercion: "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats".
Veiled: "not openly or directly expressed; masked; disguised; hidden; obscure: a veiled threat".
Threat: "a statement of an intention to inflict pain, injury, damage, or other hostile action on someone in retribution for something done or not done."

I get it that you're a Liberal apologist, but please try not to be so disingenuous when it comes to objectively discussing the merits of this entire situation.

So the best you can do is resort to name calling and 'figure it out'?  damn, maybe Trudeau is in better shape than I thought. 

 

So to summarize, you agree nothing illegal happened. You agree that jobs are important to try to save. After that, you have to make things up. 

[JM_]

14 hours ago, 406in604 said:

His turn.

no one gets a turn, you need to earn it. Nothing about this whole debacle makes Scheer a better candidate. In fact, he's shown, again, that he's willing to jump to early conclusions. Similar to how he wanted us to cave early on NAFTA and CPTPP negotiations. 

[VanGnome]

2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So the best you can do is resort to name calling and 'figure it out'?  damn, maybe Trudeau is in better shape than I thought. 

 

So to summarize, you agree nothing illegal happened. You agree that jobs are important to try to save. After that, you have to make things up. 

Where have I made anything up? Do you have any understanding of the law, and the thought processes associated with the adherence to those laws? Seems you COMPLETELY missed the point, and I'll not waste further breath.

[JM_]

Just now, VanGnome said:

Where have I made anything up? Do you have any understanding of the law, and the thought processes associated with the adherence to those laws? Seems you COMPLETELY missed the point, and I'll not waste further breath.

all of your "before and after" reasoning,your comments on when a DPA can be applied, and the role of the AG-minister, thats all made up. There's nothing about the situation where there's a bright line where one minister MUST stop talking to another minister. Thats all in your head. There's no rules like that, at all.

 

Oh and even she said nothing illegal happened. 

 

You need to turn to spin to make your point. There's no legal or procedural issue here, you just don't happen to like it. 

[VanGnome]

Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

all of your "before and after" reasoning,your comments on when a DPA can be applied, and the role of the AG-minister, thats all made up. There's nothing about the situation where there's a bright line where one minister MUST stop talking to another minister. Thats all in your head. There's no rules like that, at all.

 

Oh and even she said nothing illegal happened. 

 

You need to turn to spin to make your point. There's no legal or procedural issue here, you just don't happen to like it. 

We will see what transpires from the RCMP investigation that has undoubtedly been started, though RCMP will neither confirm nor deny that an investigation is under way. 5 former Attorney Generals of Canada have individually called the RCMP to stress the importance of an investigation, as well as a joint letter between Scheer and Singh publicly calling the RCMP to investigate the matter.

If as you say there were "no legal or procedural issues here", then why at every "turn" did the Liberals go to extreme lengths to obstruct the ability for the truth in the issue to come forward? It has only been under extreme pressure that they bent and allowed for a judicial committee to be formed on the matter. It was only under extreme pressure did Trudeau relent and waive a limited amount of client-solicitor privilege and cabinet confidentiality through the issuance of the order in council, and allowed JWR to even testify at all in any capacity.

It has only been under extreme pressure and an under oath testimony that Gerald Butts agreed to testify before the committee, and a direct counter testimony to Michael Wernick has he agreed to RE-appear before the committee.

One of the things that NO ONE has spoken about, is the RCMP if they are investigating will also very likely explore the mens rea around criminal conspiracy that would have resulted in an obstruction of justice having been committed, of which if it got to that point JWR would have been implicated. You have to look at what the ultimate goal was (forcibly change the independent decision of the DPP to issue a DPA which by the very definition of the law was ineligible to be given anyway), then take into account what those considerations were (again all inadmissible for relevancy when deciding on eligibility for a DPA) for engaging in that course of action.

Assuming the government understood their own law that was passed in their budget bill, it's safe to assume that they knew that a DPA was ineligible, and even if they did not, ignorance of the law does not dismiss criminal responsibility. Yet they embarked on an agreement anyway (as corroborated by 11 people sharing the same opinion) to attempt to change the mind of the AG which would have then illegally obstructed the lawful prosecution of SNC-Lavalin.

[VanGnome]

56 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

all of your "before and after" reasoning,your comments on when a DPA can be applied, and the role of the AG-minister, thats all made up. There's nothing about the situation where there's a bright line where one minister MUST stop talking to another minister. Thats all in your head. There's no rules like that, at all.

 

Oh and even she said nothing illegal happened. 

 

You need to turn to spin to make your point. There's no legal or procedural issue here, you just don't happen to like it. 

Quote

• Factors not to consider

  (3) Despite paragraph (2)(i), if the organization is alleged to have committed an offence under section 3 or 4 of the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the prosecutor must not consider the national economic interest, the potential effect on relations with a state other than Canada or the identity of the organization or individual involved.

• 2018, c. 12, s. 404.

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/page-179.html

national economic interest: this covers impacts to GDP, unemployment due to loss of jobs, etc

Further, political considerations are not defined AT ALL in the law, therefore they cannot be considered during the eligibility of a DPA. By clearly defining what can and cannot be used in consideration, they have provided an incredibly narrow scope as to what can and cannot be considered.

Edited March 3, 2019 by VanGnome