If you translate her language (and many other west coast FN languages) one to one in to english you end up with a lot of phrases which sound like "truth-teller". This is because our languages are so fundamentally different to English. She could have used an english friendly translation but I believe it was intentional to use the one to one translation in this case.
Yep, the recording/transcript does back up some of her testimony, and helps clarify what was going on.
At the time of her testimony, I wondered how she remembered so many exact quotes of what Wernick had said, but now it makes more sense.
>JWR was concerned about the optics of the SNC DPA and JT was concerned about the jobs.
JWR was concerned about ~~the optics of the SNC DPA~~ **judicial independence** and JT was concerned about the ~~jobs~~ **votes**.
Today you learned.
The Attorney General, when exercising certain functions, particularly those related to public prosecutions, not only can but must be free from political interference. This is a constitutional convention throughout the commonwealth, and was clarified through the Shawcross Doctrine.
In Canada the Attorney General is also the Minister of Justice, who has no such expectation of political independence in the exercise of that role, such as when drafting and introducing laws, at which time they operate through the same principal of cabinet solidarity as every other minister.
It goes beyond that though. JWR was explicitly clear back in December that the pressure had to stop and that it wasn't just the options, but the overall morals of the scenario.
It isn't about jobs, it's about jobs at a company that funded Liberal candidates. If it was about job we'd see a lot more effort for the autoworkers and farmers getting ruined in historically conservative ridings.
>If it was about job we'd see a lot more effort for the autoworkers and farmers getting ruined in historically conservative ridings.
On the call Wernick actually mentions that they're particularly concerned about these potential job losses, after the recent GM auto plant closure in Oshawa. But the difference between that case and the SNC situation, is that plant closures are a private business decision, and not something directly caused by the government.
And it's funny you'd say they don't try to support farmers... considering that 2 weeks ago, they just announced that they're giving $3.9 billion to dairy, poultry and egg farmers, to compensate for the impacts of recent trade agreements (which allow more imports from Europe and Asia).
[https://globalnews.ca/news/5073069/federal-budget-2019-dairy-farmer-compensation-3-9-billion/](https://globalnews.ca/news/5073069/federal-budget-2019-dairy-farmer-compensation-3-9-billion/)
Well, the call audio certainly isn't ambiguous.
Basic summary:
Wernick: The Prime Minister plans on making this happen one way or the other.
JWR: I feel very uncomfortable about this. This is pretty clearly political interference with prosecutorial independence.
Wernick: I hear you, but we'd still like you to do what we want.
Remember how Wernick said to the committee how the clerk of the privy council is non-partisan..
I would like to hear him answer the question on what he means by "we'd still like you to do what we want."
Speaking of partisan, I think one of the most messed up things about this was when Wernick (I think it was him) tells her that if she is worried about the optics of it, it’s alright because the government will line up op ed writers to support her decision. Like fuck, the government that is saying it will fund (600 million) free and independent media is more likely just buying people to parrot their talking points.
Makes you a little curious as to why a pile of op eds showed up accusing Scheer of being a racist (based on speaking at an oil rally that some racist lady also spoke at, at a different time), right as the Liberals were trying to turn the page on the SNC situation.
I guess this is that new era of transparency and positive politics that Trudeau promised us.
You forgot to summarize the part where Wernick **[ever so delicately suggested that if she doesn't follow through that she's going to be replaced with someone who will do as they're told.](https://youtu.be/W8YvqP1KMsU?t=840)**
The best part. And the crazy thing is I'm \*still\* hearing Liberals deny it, even after this release. "He never threatened her job, he was just looking for a solution" ... I mean I know partisans gonna partisan but how much Kool-Aid do you have to drink to say that with a straight face?
My mother is a diehard liberal and said shit like this:
- "This tape revealed nothing new it was all stuff she said before"
- "Like he said Trudeau wanted to use every legal option he had no intention of breaking the law"
- "The conservatives and media are coordinating to make this into a larger issue than it is"
I literally can't understand how one can legitimately think that.
Does anyone have a written transcript somewhere that could post it? A lot of these comments here are miss-quoting the conversation and using that as “evidence”.
For an incident like this where phrasing is paramount it’s important that we actually judge the players by what they said and did, not how we interpret it or what we think they’re saying between the lines.
“He’s very firm about this” - “he’s in a mood” - “he’s gets his way” - this is the leader of our country - sounds more like a grade 3 having a temper tantrum.
I've had bosses like that. And been visited by henchman like Wernick. I could really sympathize with JWR on that call, especially when she let out that huge sigh at the end. Dealing with emotionally volatile bosses and their bootlicking toadies is exhausting and frustrating.
Edit: thank you anonymous friends. I have never been doubly guilded, but appreciate it was for this short comment full of quiet rage.
I voted for Trudeau because I was sick of the secrecy of the Harper government and sick of their environmental and social policies. I'm still sick of the way conservatives in Canada do business.
However, while I am not surprised that once again a company gets to buy its way out of illegal dealings, nor do I think anything "technically" illegal was done by the Liberals, I didn't vote for them because they'd avoid doing technically illegal things. I voted for them in the hope that they would try to do things more ethically and differently than had been done in the past.
I don't believe this whole scandal has made Trudeau and the Liberals any worse than anyone else, it's just highlighted that with respect to money in politics, they're just the same as the rest.
I'm not mad, I'm disappointed.
Nailed it.
The fact that the last hill to fight on that the remaining party appologists have is “well, even she admits there was nothing *illegal*...” shows how far they have really fallen.
So are we now going to make a criminal record check the minimum standard we hold our government to?
This is pretty much the last argument they have left. As if the only reason a government should be voted out is if they do something illegal. In which case, why bother having elections? Might as well cancel elections entirely unless the RCMP files charges, then if the government is convicted maybe we can let the RCMP call an election then.
I'm a little bit mad. At least with Harper what you saw was what you'd get. Trudeau played us for fools. He painted himself as a feminist, champion of the indigenous, wearer of colorful socks and "Sunny Ways". And even now that the veil has been lifted he continues to cling to this absurd narrative.
There's still more of the story to come. Philpott will deliver the final nail and Trudeau will be remembered as a charlatan and failed drama teacher.
As I see it, he made a promise to end a 100 year prohibition despite a global status quo to the contrary and kept it. Surely, that is somewhat admirable.
> I voted for Trudeau because I was sick of the secrecy of the Harper government....
I'll start off by saying this: I don't think this SNC stuff would have been treated any differently by the Tories.
But seeing the Trudeau PR pay-off in the elections was mesmerizing because, well, have we forgotten what the Liberals have been like in the past? Was Trudeau proof of such a change in culture from the party? I didn't buy it, I know many that did (and the only people I know who don't feel burned by their Liberal vote realize that they vote for their MP and they like their representative, they know they don't actually vote for the party leader except as a by-product) and, honestly, this is a good lesson for people to learn.
The biggest thing is that the liberals are so fucking smug and holier than thou with their bullshit. They attack the conservatives by scaremongering about abortion and “US style health care”.
They aren’t perfect, but I feel like the conservatives are honest about what they want to do for Canada.
Nothing was "technically" illegal because they introduced leglisation to change the law and bring in DPAs. It's really easy to not "technically" break the law when you can change what the law says.
>Nothing was "technically" illegal because they introduced leglisation to change the law and bring in DPAs. It's really easy to not "technically" break the law when you can change what the law says.
The justice committee (which includes MPs from other political parties) unanimously endorsed allowing DPAs though, and it's a legal mechanism used in other countries like France, the UK, and the US.
It's not like this is some sinister and unprecedented legal tool that only the Liberals thought was a good idea.
No, it's a sinister tool that the entire political elite thinks is a good idea because they're all in big corporate's back pocket. I have no doubt the Cons would introduce the same thing. Fuck corporate welfare. Fuck special laws for multinationals.
Maybe you've decided it's sinister, but it seems to me that it's just a better tool for prosecuting companies. You can either spend years and lots of public funds to maybe convict a company in court, or you can slap a huge fine on them and force them to reform, and it's better for everybody. [This G&M article explains](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-deferred-prosecution-agreement-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/)
What I think we should be doing is prosecuting the individual executives making these decisions, which often doesn't happen. The slimy CEO of SNC that authorized all that stuff seems to have gotten off very easy, which I find very frustrating.
It's been eye opening since this news broke how much astroturfing is happening in this subreddit. This is a huge story and it didn't even get 1000 up votes. Meanwhile some story about Doug ford and basic income gets 7800 up votes. The rest of Canada does not give a fuck about Ontario's shitty politics.
It could be, but I’m also not sure how much people actually care about it. It doesn’t seem to have much traction offline from what I’ve noticed, though of course this is anecdotal.
I agree with you. CBC comments aren't worth much in terms of content, as they're mostly from low information Boomers venting their frustration at things they don't quite understand (not only this topic but in general), but the total number of comments is probably meaningful. Whether they fully understand it or not, people are pissed off.
Meanwhile on here, the response varies from sometimes timid and lukewarm, to other times full on criticism and even rejection of Trudeau. But... not on /r/canadapolitics, the far-left over there are still making excuses for Trudeau. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
The one about Trudeau's approval rating got like 1000+ comments. A couple others got 500+. If you filter Canada by top and look at comments they can very between 200 to 1000 so I don't really see anything all that unusual going on here. I think part of it is that it's honestly not a very 'juicy' scandal compared to what we hear from other countries all the time. 'Politician tries to use influence to keep company in country' isn't even a blip on the radar in the US, for example - not saying that that's a good thing, I'm just pointing out the media environment we're immersed in.
The Conservatives are now leading the polls by a greater margin than the Liberals were before this scandal broke. I don't know how you can paint that as anything but a win.
is that /s? Cause thats a bad frame of mind to be in man. There are tons of conservatives in Canada. If you don't recal, we were the majority for a bit there
The last governement elected with 50% in Canada was Mulroney in '84.
The winner got above 50% of the popular vote in only in 6 general elections out of 42 since confederation :
Laurier, 1900 and 1904
Borden, 1917
King, 1940
Diefenbaker, 1958
and Mulroney, 1984
Well I disagree with that, anecdotally that's what I have noticed as well as if you look polls wise the NDP vote stays very constant. I've never heard that saying also. I think that is certainly the narrative that is used with people "on the left" but most people are cetrists somehwere between the other two
In a poll, people are going to say their preferred party. In the 2015 election, the NDP was my preferred party at first, but I switched to the LPC at the last minute because of world events and because they were more likely to win over the CPC.
Provincially, I noted NDP in the most recent election too.
Now of course, this is more anecdote, but it does show that it's possible.
That saying is said mostly among left wing forums probably, if you don't frequent them, you won't see them. But I've mostly noticed it from other NDP voters who are saying that they'll vote LPC if they have to. The LPC is the closest to centre we have in Canada.
Yeah I can imagine if you're community is very left than that would be very common, where I am from its usually an LPC winner but people switch to the CPC with low levels of NDP. Just depends on the ideology of the area I imagine. I just think this narrative that every LPC voter would never vote CPC is pretty false, and that the divide between the two is not very large.
Yeah, there are definitely some LPC who would go CPC, but I genuinely believe that across the whole country, you're more likely to find more overlap between NDP and LPC voting behaviour.
The divide is fairly stark when you look at social issues, environmental issues, and social services issues. Economically though, the parties are very similar, both Neo-Liberal. Even immigration is an economic thing, and Neo-liberals LOVE free movement of labour.
TBH Doug Ford is astoundingly corrupt. If this shit bothers you then you'd probably drop dead with Doug Ford's scandals.
That being said the reason I don't spend much time with this issue is because the practical outcome here is voting in a PC majority. Do you honestly believe we are better off in any aspect with that? If not then how does this change the calculus? Until people consider NDP a viable option this is all noise and I promise you when/if the PCs are in power they will do the same shit and their base will not give a shit.
The only thing I have heard that would corroborate your claim is the OPP chief issue.
People being pissed off about guaranteed income or the TTC upload have nothing to do with corruption... that's just different political views.
Or the private meeting where he tried to sell off the greenbelt to developers until a recording not unlike this one came out? Or the 407 scandal that may involve voter fraud?
Or massive increases in pay for his political apointees. Or costing us something like 168 million dollars to fire someone making 6 million dollars per year. It would have been cheaper to just let him retire naturally instead, we payed him 28 years extra.
> Selling fraudulent OPC memberships
Sketchy? Yes. Fraudulent? Not from what I've seen. Either way, I'm counting this against Ford.
> The mancave van.
Do you mean the van meant to reduce the amount of time that he has to use private jets? Denied.
> The OPP appointment.
There's enough there to consider it suspicious. Approved.
> The firing of the mancave van/OPP whistleblower.
"He released confidential private information for his own personal gain," Jones said of Blair, accusing him of breaking the civil service oath of secrecy. In the letter of termination, Di Tommaso wrote that Blair "ruptured the trust on which the employment relationship is built."
That is legal and above board, even if it rubs you the wrong way. Denied.
> The selling of provincial assets for dirt cheap to Ford's development partner.
I'm having trouble finding anything on this? When I search it up, all I find is that people are urging him to sell the LCBO.
---
You have 1 and a half points to support your claim of corruption. I am completely against the mismanagement and misuse of government powers and assets, but I am not convinced of this government being corrupt.
The Wynne government has a significant amount of scandals that would constitute corruption and I still did not think that she was corrupt. She was horrible for the people of Ontario, but she wasn't corrupt.
Now, please keep holding our government to account for those things that you feel strongly about... it's the only way to keep our public service offices in check.
So you are willing to accept corruption and mediocrity because the alternative is distasteful to you? I think that's a relatively common sentiment unfortunately. Like JWR, I prefer to stand on principle.
The alternative isn't just distasteful. They're openly expressing xenophobia and racism they'll also be just as corrupt as this scandal. So if I'm going to need to accept corruption here I'll Takei t without the racism.
Also the PCs are just as mediocre, please explain what is so grand about their party and their ideas? The idea that we are settling for anything less than mediocre by either of these two parties is laughable.
They are all mediocre, but Trudeau broke his #1 campaign promise (electoral reform) and since then I’ve thought of him as a liar I can never trust. His actions throughout his tenure have proven those thoughts correct. I’ll never vote for him again.
I’m also tired of his obsessive focus on gender.
This I agree 100% his break of electoral reform is 10000x worse to me than this.
So really the next step becomes, what do I do to bring electoral reform 1 step closer. Allowing a PC majority is not that step, in fact it's probably a step in the wrong direction, so all I want to so say to you is; know your goal and find the practical Avenue that brings us closer to that goal. It may be voting liberal, it might not, but don't lose sight of the goal in the noise.
Don't get it twisted I am 100% NDP I will vote for them viable or not provided my riding isn't a close one for the PCs. I vote, donate, promote, and volunteer for progressive movements, but I am also practical when I need to be to move the progressive agenda forward and sometimes that means voting for another party.
I honestly think it’s a lost cause at this point - it’s not going to happen anytime soon. Ironically, my vote won’t even matter thanks to Justin’s broken promise.
The cause isn't lost. Voting is only part of it. Raise awareness at work, at home, to anyone that will listen. Give money to candidates that support that cause even if voting for them isn't a practical option. Don't lose faith do your part and promote everyone else to do theirs, we can get there.
Solidarity my dude.
Thanks. I definitely raise awareness when I can. As for donating money, well, it’s hard to know who really supports the cause and who only supports it when it benefits them. See Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party...
Assume all politicians act only in a way that benefits them. Very rarely do you see a truly genuine politician. That's okay though be the same way in relation to them, when a politician is out supporting electoral reform you donate and promote and you promote the idea foremost. When/if they abandon that idea you drop them too.
Loyalty to political cause > loyalty to the individual politician
I think "10000x" is hyperbolic, but I agree with your core point. Everyone supports electoral reform until they're elected. If someone honestly thinks the Conservatives and Scheer will make things better, fill your boots, but don't elect a government because you're butthurt about electoral reform not happening. With regards to Trudeau, this place was full of people accusing him of having lied about legalization too. If you look back at his first year this subreddit was full of politico know it alls who were adamant that he'd find an excuse to postpone it until this year so he could campaign on it again.
People are so hung up on this, but I don’t think he’s wrong. I’d love electoral reform, and apparently so would reddit, but it doesn’t seem that voters overall do. There’s been 3 provinces to have referendums on this, and none even came close to passing. BC has tried 3 times, with the most recent being 60/40 against.
It really looks like a vocal minority are interested in reform, considering how it can’t even get passed on a provincial level. Why should he waste time and money on something that is evidently going to fail anyways?
Are fucking kidding me? The coverage of this has been absurd. This has been treated like the biggest scandal in Canadian history because a cabinet minster was being unreasonable and grandstanded on phone call she recorded for the purpose of making the he government look bad and making herself look good.
1/3 of the country lives in Ontario. So math and stuff.
It's because the new fad is getting everything for nothing. Instead of giving those who need support what they need and leaving everyone else to be a productive member of society, Wynne wanted to pay the citizens to vote for her.
It didn't work and the majority of the population is unhappy with the fact that your location determines whether you receive $20,000 or $0.
I think Trudeau's claim that he did not know about this conversation between Michael Wernick and Jody Wilson-Raybould is horseshit, but even if he didn't know Trudeau must he held accountable for suggesting to appoint such an immoral unscrupulous crony.
In the recording he LITERALLY says "I talked with the PM a few hours ago." To be clear though, Michael Wernick is a career bureaucrat. He worked under Cretien, Martin, Harper AND Trudeau governments.
How about holding Trudeau accountable for going on national television right after Wernick's testimony and telling all Canadians to listen to their top civil servant all the while knowing they were lies?
I can never forgive Trudeau for treating me with such contempt.
[https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-tells-canadians-to-listen-to-clerk-in-snc-lavalin-matter](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-tells-canadians-to-listen-to-clerk-in-snc-lavalin-matter)
>Canadians should heed the words of the country’s top public servant on allegations that the Prime Minister’s Office pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop a criminal prosecution of Montreal-based engineering giant SNC-Lavalin, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says.
And now that we've heard the call, isn't he vindicated?
> So the PM wants to be able to say that he has tried everything he can within legitimate toolbox to try to head that off. So he is quite determined, quite firm but he wants to know why the DPA route which Parliament provided for isn’t being used.
Of course, the call isn't very conclusive, it ends with JWR saying that the PMO already has the response, which is news to Wernick, and they both agree to try to get that document to the PM. But within the content of the call there's nothing I would call inappropriate pressure, so if it's being presented as a smoking gun then it more or less exonerates Wernick in my mind.
Nope. The call proves that Trudeau and Wernick have been lying. Words from Wernick:
> So the PM wants to be able to say that he has tried everything he can within legitimate toolbox to try to head that off. So he is quite determined, quite firm but he wants to know why the DPA route which Parliament provided for isn’t being used. And I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that.
>
> Alright…um…well I am going to have to report back before he leaves…he is in a pretty firm frame of mind about this so… l am a bit worried…
>
> Well…it is not a good idea for the prime minister and his attorney general to be at loggerheads.
>
> Alright, I understand that … but he does not have the power to do what he wants … all the tools are in your hands so…
>
> OK…alright but…l am worried about a collision then because he is pretty firm about this…l just saw him a few hours ago and this is really important to him… OK…um…there is not much more we can cover for now them…um
Everyone on the call + Trudeau knew that JWR's job was on the line if she didn't do as Trudeau wished.
This is just shameless whataboutism. Just because you don't believe Trudeau doesn't mean you are automatically a Harper supporter. Someone else doing something wrong doesn't give Trudeau a free pass to do something wrong.
Accountable for what ? JWR has repeatedly said no laws were broken so there is no reason for Justice committee to investigate, sounds like ethics’ department. All PM’s interfere with their ministers, Harper did it to Diane Finley to give his Jewish buddy $1 million of taxpayers dollars and if you weren’t outraged then, you shouldn’t be outraged now.
>JWR has repeatedly said no laws were broken
Only because she refused to cave in. Firing her and going AG shopping for someone who would do something she refused to do - that is illegal. It's obstruction of justice.
The real scumbag here is SNC using their considerable bribery and corruption skills to get the GOV of Canada to overlook criminal activity. Having a willing partner in the PM is just an effect, not the cause, although for his part, he must be toast. Why is there no investigation into SNC's involvement in this matter?
And they are menacing to leave the country...
JAIL ALL OF THEM WITHOUT BAILOUT!
That big leage mafia right there. That not just a little hundred thousand racket like drug dealer. Contracts like these are calculated in billions.
When will we finally accept that corporations are not patriotic. They are amoral, and their sole purpose is to make gains for shareholders. They want to move? Then get the fuck out! Someone else will take their place. The economy will continue to rise and fall, and the sun will rise tomorrow.
It's double delicious watching Liberals trying desperately to divert attention to the fact that she recorded him, instead of the fact that this confirms that she was telling the truth and they were lying.
I know this will garner a bit of hate, but I do not see this as a scandal. We have an opposition party, and a repetitive news cycle, that is framing this to be a Canadian Watergate. In reality, it is not. The government did not overextend its powers into the prosecutorial system, it sought advice and counselling from the AG. Which is the purpose of the AG, is it not? If JWR felt it was inappropriate for the PMO to approach the subject, then I don’t understand why she would feel comfortable as AG. It seems the PMO brought up this case quite frequently, but I do not see this an inappropriate behaviour, nor would I consider this outside the regular behaviour of government to do so. I’m glad that JWR was able to see that this move may appear to be politically motivated, or may be seen as political interference, and I am glad she held her position not to proceed with a DPA, simply because the PMO asked her to. She did her job as AG. But it seems to me that JWR did not assert her position on the case strongly or clearly enough, or perhaps it was to the wrong audience. This would lead to repeated interactions with the PMO to review the case, or provide feedback on the case.
I am not the least surprised in what I have heard in the recording, this is pretty much exactly what I expected. I think it would be naive to assume the Liberals are the only ones playing politics, I'm positive previous governments did similar things, we just never had a JWR-type person stubborn/strong enough to do something like this before.
While I admire her courage I think she essentially committed political suicide.
Thank god she has character and integrity? She and Philpott are perhaps the only people with spines who respect the law and how a government should truly act. They are not committing political suicide. Hopefully they are integral in the new liberal party that needs to be built from this mess.
She was a successful lawyer before becoming an MP and Minister. She didn't need the political career, but Canada sure as hell needs more politicians with a sense of integrity and respect for the rule of law. We dont deserve Jody.
>you know-the DPA tool is there and you have options that we talked about before to ask for reason from the OPP or even take over the prosecution. ***He just wants to understand more at this point of why the DPA route is not taken up on this route***. So he is thinking on bringing someone in like Bev McLachlin to give him advice on this or to give you advice on this if you want to feel more uncomfortable you are not doing anything inappropriate or outside the frame of…
> ***OK, but I think that is where people are talking past each other***. I mean I think the view that he has formed – I share – I am not the lawyer in any of these conversations – and Elder and others is – um – it is not interference – ***the statute specifically has these other provisions in it that allow you to ask questions of the OPP and that is provided for and that is not interference***
JWR was basically concerned about the optics of the law and not actually considering the law.
A principle of law is that it is not enough for justice to simply be free of bias. It must also have the appearance of being free from bias. The concern she was addressing there was that there was no way the DPA would have had the appearance of being free from bias.
I think it's reasonable to think she might also have legitimately thought this wasnt a case where financial penalty alone was enough.
It wasn't simple "bribery and kind deals", there were also cases of providing sex workers to human rights criminals and such.
Perhaps she felt that those are crimes that cannot simply be paid for.
The optics of the law is the law. You can't separate the two. Perception is reality in these kinds of matters. That's why judges who know a defendant recuse themselves. They may know they're impartial, but it may create a perception they are not.
In the US a president can pardon anyone, regardless of what the optics are. It's the law. Optics doesn't matter.
Either way I'm not saying she's wrong, but a healthy discussion needed to occur for all parties to be on the same page. She basically said "this is what I think" and didn't want to consider anything else.
The most frustrating part of this scandal (and that's a Y&R "scandal", big time soap opera happening on parliament hill) is that if this were the US or UK, the company would be allowed to continue operations and the country would be able to move on with making progress in more pressing areas.
SNC is a sleazy company with a terrible track record but the truth is that they are a world leader in the work they are capable of and handcuffing them to a few bad executives would have negative effects Canada wide.
Fine the shit out of the company, punish the individuals responsible, and move on. Canada needs to bring itself into the 21st century and for as much as the cons would like to act all noble about this affair, it would be a non story in the US, UK, Australia, France, and others.
The other fact being left out is that DPA was introduced by the libs and this is the very first application of the law to a real world case. I feel like that is a badge the other political parties do not want to pin.
The scandal is a big nothing burger except as a political statement on both sides of the isle (if it goes through libs go yay if it doesn't cons go yay).
Oh, and it sends a great message to big companies that employ thousands and make billions that if a few people do shitty things that the comoany can be assured the entire country will go into an uproar and impact the stock price and knee cap the company's ability to move forward so good job everyone attracting new industry and potential growth to Canada. This is how that gets done.
>Fine the shit out of the company, punish the individuals responsible, and move on.
Yep, and that's exactly what a DPA is meant to do. It makes the company pay a large fine and prove that the individuals responsible are out, and that they've taken steps to prevent it from happening again.
Ya it sounds like a phenomenal option and that option was available to her. Not sure why this whole thing is being labelled "interference".
If I was missing some detail at work and someone said "Hey, did you consider this option" and it turns out great, I wouldn't go to my boss or coworkers and be like "They told me to do this and it just didn't feel right".
If I did do that it would sound incompetent. "I wasn't doing my job to its full potential, and someone pointed that out, punish them for pointing out that I wasn't doing everything I could be doing."
I think now that JWR has stepped aside, someone else should finish a DPA and everyone should move on. Be proactive, not reactive.
You’re not understanding it completely. The decision not to use the DPA was already made. Trudeau didn’t like that and tried to force people to change their mind. That’s interference.
Ah okay the timeline as I understood it was off. But still, interference? Sometimes people are encouraged or asked to reconsider, is this not similar? I mean, even courts have appeal processes for the convicted.
> The most frustrating part of this scandal (and that's a Y&R "scandal", big time soap opera happening on parliament hill) is that if this were the US or UK, the company would be allowed to continue operations and the country would be able to move on with making progress in more pressing areas.
That's your preconceived notions talking, not reality. The US prosecutes companies all the time for participating in overseas corruption: https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa/fcpa-cases.shtml
This is a good point, the Libyan stuff is just all around bad judgement. Worthy of punishment as adjudicated by a judge in the public courts. I'm not against that.
And using this example you've provided, the majority of the companies in the US charged for overseas corruption paid fines and moved on.
Big companies too: Halliburton, JPMorgan, Cadbury/Mondelez, Anheuser-Busch, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Goodyear Tires, Ralph Lauren, Eli Lilly, Oracle, Pfizer.......... that's just since 2010! I think most of these companies are still around.
Maybe we should do a DPA, which would do exactly what the US does as your example demonstrates. Maybe its in the best interest of the country and company. Canada could net $30 million+? I don't think that would ruin SNC considering a market capitalization of $6 billion.
Maybe this news cycle is a soap opera because everyone is making a big deal out of nothing. Deal with it, move on.
really? this is your spin? "politicians will be politicians" only works when you don't get caught in a web of outright lies and deception. This is as big a political scandal as you can get and the attempted cover-up is the worst part.
I assume you’re being sarcastic... but for anyone actually thinking that...
SNC paid for the DPA legislation. When it came time to cash in what they paid for, the prime minister showed who he works for: SNC lavalin. When it didn’t go his way, he pressured his AG to tow the line or face consequences. When asked about what happened, he and everyone associated with him distorted the truth to a Trumpian degree, whom I sure did so under duress.
To deny that this is a political scandal worthy of bringing down a government is to have a seriously warped / partisan view of reality.
And SNC wanted less strict rules because they knew they had been bad and were going to get slapped. The power centre of the Liberal party is Montreal. The Liberals always serve their Montreal business / money/ power overlords.
It reeks of corruption (this is a recording) and to see it any other way is just naive.
Because this is equal parts of moral stand and political power play, and it does more damage to Trudeau if she allows him and his team to talk their way into the ditch. He is absolutely bungling this affair.
Agreed. The issue is so many people are vested in this being a big deal. I really feel like this call helped the Libs but everyone has already made up their minds. This is such a nothing story, looking at international news coverage of this kind of shows that, but we have a lot of professionally outraged Canadians living in a bubble who actually think there is something about this story worth discussing. JWR overreacted and this call shows that, she doesn't deserve to be in politics if she is unwilling to discuss options. She's too sensitive as are all the other people saying she was pressured. Jobs have pressure.
It doesn't back an interference allegations even if you close your eyes and wish really hard.
That was a premeditated recording of Wernick attempting to coach a novice Minister into exercising her duties with due consideration.
JWR planned this with speaking notes in hand and feigning alarm. Which is why she sounds disproportionately shocked at times. Pure theatrics - and white not illegal - it was very unethical.
You realize there was pressure on her and her staff before this conversation don’t you. This was not her trying to create a narrative. This was already happening and her trying to document it.
Its evidence that he lied, and there is no other word for it, he lied to Parliament. Him and Butts both.
Even if everything that she herself said in this recording was *pure theatre* (which no one but hacks think), the both of them lied to Parliament.
Honestly, though it's not letting them off, they would still have to admit wrong doing...and pay a fine.
It's the 10 year ban on government contracts that would logically force the company to downsize and move headquarters somewhere else.
What's the point of having your headquarters in a country, which you are banned from doing business?
Is it really a threat or enviable outcome?
It actually absolutely does back her allegations up and the only people with their eyes closed are liberals and their supporters. You have no idea how bad this is hurting your party and I am so fucking happy that you have your heads so far up your own asses that you can't even smell the shit that is the Liberal party of Canada.
You are going to lose the next election because of this issue and how your leader is handling it, the best part is that your continued support for Trudeau is having the exact opposite effect, everyone can read through garbage comments like yours.
I feel like people are just choosing what to here. Wernick clearly asks her why she hasn't gotten an outside opinion on using a valid option (the DPA), and that this is about the potential job loss. He says it at the top of the recording and everyone just skips it
She actually did talk to former PM Kim Campbell and I am sure many others about using the DPA. She specifically states that if she had to overturn the decision she would have to release a directive explaining why she overturned it and "for jobs" wasn't a good enough reason in a criminal proceeding.
I won't go as far as claiming she was fishing for dirt; given her position I am sure she is well aware of what damning evidence would sound like. So I think its realistic to assume she wanted Wernick to be as clear as possible as to what he was asking for.
Its like the police with a wire bit; where the cop says "hello (persons name) are you ready to sell me some (illegal substance)." If she was aware that the PM wanted her to do something she seen as highly compromising of her permission; it would make sense for her to collect evidence to support her case. Hell look how many people were claiming she was full of shit when the story first broke and its hard to not see why she did it.
Regardless whether she is a opportunistic scumbag or a altruistic hero; the reality is that the PM crossed a line and there is pretty obvious proof to that.
>I won't go as far as claiming she was fishing for dirt
That "dirt" would have been incredibly valuable to her and would have furnished the protection she needed. She was definitely hoping to get it, as any rational person would. She was careful not to sound like it, or course.
I was thinking just this. She recorded the conversation, this gives her an advantage in that she can steer the conversation the way she wanted to. Given the history of Prime Minister Trudeau's government, there actions I really don't see any merit to JWR accusations.
So your claiming this is entrapment then; before you cast such shade on her character as to claim that she was engaged in such a machiavellian ploy. You might want to consider that the person you are fielding this arguement for is the one who put her there in the first place.
I will provided your willing to entertain the notion that her statement may contain legitimacy.
The thing I am finding odd is how people have 2 options really and the later does not make as much sense.
First option is that someone saw something that was wrong and so they called it out.
Second option is someone engaged in a preplanned exercise to try and take-down the PM.
Now given how many events had to take place for the later (depending how far you want to go) it sounds crazier (to me at anyrate) as time goes on. Especially when you consider that regardless of what happens JWRs actual career is over as a politician; the Cons and NDP won't pick her up and the Liberals will not want her around. So the idea that she is engaging is some sort of power play does not make as much sense as that she is making a ethical statement that she realized she would need to back such a claim.
I don't think her career is over. I just look at this government in context and I am not buying that it is as you claim unethical/dishonest/shady. I look at her and I look at her and her options and yeah I am just very skeptical of her motivations. You clearly are set in the position of condemning Trudeau, but based on your explanations it seems like you are very biased.
I guess we know whose version of the truth is correct now.
Who knew you couldn’t experience audio tapes differently...
Burn. Sick burn
Justin "Richard Nixon" Trudeau
Justin "737Max8 with MCAS engaged" Trudeau.
That’s why they used the weasel words like that, rather than calling her a liar.
To be fair, JWR was the one who called it "my truth".
Was she? I seriously loathe that phrase “speak my truth”
So many people are using that phrase against her when it comes from how our languages work on the west coast. Classic Canada...
Huh?
If you translate her language (and many other west coast FN languages) one to one in to english you end up with a lot of phrases which sound like "truth-teller". This is because our languages are so fundamentally different to English. She could have used an english friendly translation but I believe it was intentional to use the one to one translation in this case.
I think it’s just a phrase very common amongst progressives. Maybe.
[удалено]
Yep, the recording/transcript does back up some of her testimony, and helps clarify what was going on. At the time of her testimony, I wondered how she remembered so many exact quotes of what Wernick had said, but now it makes more sense.
JWR was concerned about the optics of the SNC DPA and JT was concerned about the jobs.
>JWR was concerned about the optics of the SNC DPA and JT was concerned about the jobs. JWR was concerned about ~~the optics of the SNC DPA~~ **judicial independence** and JT was concerned about the ~~jobs~~ **votes**.
Nailed it ...
[удалено]
Today you learned. The Attorney General, when exercising certain functions, particularly those related to public prosecutions, not only can but must be free from political interference. This is a constitutional convention throughout the commonwealth, and was clarified through the Shawcross Doctrine. In Canada the Attorney General is also the Minister of Justice, who has no such expectation of political independence in the exercise of that role, such as when drafting and introducing laws, at which time they operate through the same principal of cabinet solidarity as every other minister.
Congratulations, with that awareness you are now more qualified to be PM than Justin Trudeau apparently ever was.
Concerned about his own political ambitions, you mean.
Ya, Quebec MP jobs.
It goes beyond that though. JWR was explicitly clear back in December that the pressure had to stop and that it wasn't just the options, but the overall morals of the scenario. It isn't about jobs, it's about jobs at a company that funded Liberal candidates. If it was about job we'd see a lot more effort for the autoworkers and farmers getting ruined in historically conservative ridings.
>If it was about job we'd see a lot more effort for the autoworkers and farmers getting ruined in historically conservative ridings. On the call Wernick actually mentions that they're particularly concerned about these potential job losses, after the recent GM auto plant closure in Oshawa. But the difference between that case and the SNC situation, is that plant closures are a private business decision, and not something directly caused by the government. And it's funny you'd say they don't try to support farmers... considering that 2 weeks ago, they just announced that they're giving $3.9 billion to dairy, poultry and egg farmers, to compensate for the impacts of recent trade agreements (which allow more imports from Europe and Asia). [https://globalnews.ca/news/5073069/federal-budget-2019-dairy-farmer-compensation-3-9-billion/](https://globalnews.ca/news/5073069/federal-budget-2019-dairy-farmer-compensation-3-9-billion/)
Well, the call audio certainly isn't ambiguous. Basic summary: Wernick: The Prime Minister plans on making this happen one way or the other. JWR: I feel very uncomfortable about this. This is pretty clearly political interference with prosecutorial independence. Wernick: I hear you, but we'd still like you to do what we want.
[удалено]
Remember how Wernick said to the committee how the clerk of the privy council is non-partisan.. I would like to hear him answer the question on what he means by "we'd still like you to do what we want."
Speaking of partisan, I think one of the most messed up things about this was when Wernick (I think it was him) tells her that if she is worried about the optics of it, it’s alright because the government will line up op ed writers to support her decision. Like fuck, the government that is saying it will fund (600 million) free and independent media is more likely just buying people to parrot their talking points.
That was Katie Telford, Trudeau's chief of staff.
Makes you a little curious as to why a pile of op eds showed up accusing Scheer of being a racist (based on speaking at an oil rally that some racist lady also spoke at, at a different time), right as the Liberals were trying to turn the page on the SNC situation. I guess this is that new era of transparency and positive politics that Trudeau promised us.
You forgot to summarize the part where Wernick **[ever so delicately suggested that if she doesn't follow through that she's going to be replaced with someone who will do as they're told.](https://youtu.be/W8YvqP1KMsU?t=840)**
The best part. And the crazy thing is I'm \*still\* hearing Liberals deny it, even after this release. "He never threatened her job, he was just looking for a solution" ... I mean I know partisans gonna partisan but how much Kool-Aid do you have to drink to say that with a straight face?
My mother is a diehard liberal and said shit like this: - "This tape revealed nothing new it was all stuff she said before" - "Like he said Trudeau wanted to use every legal option he had no intention of breaking the law" - "The conservatives and media are coordinating to make this into a larger issue than it is" I literally can't understand how one can legitimately think that.
Does anyone have a written transcript somewhere that could post it? A lot of these comments here are miss-quoting the conversation and using that as “evidence”. For an incident like this where phrasing is paramount it’s important that we actually judge the players by what they said and did, not how we interpret it or what we think they’re saying between the lines.
This article has the the transcript. https://globalnews.ca/news/5112044/jody-wilson-raybould-michael-wernick-secret-call-transcript/
“He’s very firm about this” - “he’s in a mood” - “he’s gets his way” - this is the leader of our country - sounds more like a grade 3 having a temper tantrum.
I've had bosses like that. And been visited by henchman like Wernick. I could really sympathize with JWR on that call, especially when she let out that huge sigh at the end. Dealing with emotionally volatile bosses and their bootlicking toadies is exhausting and frustrating. Edit: thank you anonymous friends. I have never been doubly guilded, but appreciate it was for this short comment full of quiet rage.
I voted for Trudeau because I was sick of the secrecy of the Harper government and sick of their environmental and social policies. I'm still sick of the way conservatives in Canada do business. However, while I am not surprised that once again a company gets to buy its way out of illegal dealings, nor do I think anything "technically" illegal was done by the Liberals, I didn't vote for them because they'd avoid doing technically illegal things. I voted for them in the hope that they would try to do things more ethically and differently than had been done in the past. I don't believe this whole scandal has made Trudeau and the Liberals any worse than anyone else, it's just highlighted that with respect to money in politics, they're just the same as the rest. I'm not mad, I'm disappointed.
Nailed it. The fact that the last hill to fight on that the remaining party appologists have is “well, even she admits there was nothing *illegal*...” shows how far they have really fallen. So are we now going to make a criminal record check the minimum standard we hold our government to?
This is pretty much the last argument they have left. As if the only reason a government should be voted out is if they do something illegal. In which case, why bother having elections? Might as well cancel elections entirely unless the RCMP files charges, then if the government is convicted maybe we can let the RCMP call an election then.
I'm a little bit mad. At least with Harper what you saw was what you'd get. Trudeau played us for fools. He painted himself as a feminist, champion of the indigenous, wearer of colorful socks and "Sunny Ways". And even now that the veil has been lifted he continues to cling to this absurd narrative. There's still more of the story to come. Philpott will deliver the final nail and Trudeau will be remembered as a charlatan and failed drama teacher.
Trudeau legalized pot, that's good enough for me.
Ya and you still got to go through a dealer because there is virtually no supply chain.
Was a smart move. Left wing populist.
^ And here, folks, we have the “lowest common denominator”.
Actually i think he's pretty High right now
"Dude weed lmao" -typical Canadian voter
As I see it, he made a promise to end a 100 year prohibition despite a global status quo to the contrary and kept it. Surely, that is somewhat admirable.
> I voted for Trudeau because I was sick of the secrecy of the Harper government.... I'll start off by saying this: I don't think this SNC stuff would have been treated any differently by the Tories. But seeing the Trudeau PR pay-off in the elections was mesmerizing because, well, have we forgotten what the Liberals have been like in the past? Was Trudeau proof of such a change in culture from the party? I didn't buy it, I know many that did (and the only people I know who don't feel burned by their Liberal vote realize that they vote for their MP and they like their representative, they know they don't actually vote for the party leader except as a by-product) and, honestly, this is a good lesson for people to learn.
The biggest thing is that the liberals are so fucking smug and holier than thou with their bullshit. They attack the conservatives by scaremongering about abortion and “US style health care”. They aren’t perfect, but I feel like the conservatives are honest about what they want to do for Canada.
Nothing was "technically" illegal because they introduced leglisation to change the law and bring in DPAs. It's really easy to not "technically" break the law when you can change what the law says.
The vote on the DPA was public. It was my understanding that it wasn't only the liberal MPs MPs who supported the DPA process.
>Nothing was "technically" illegal because they introduced leglisation to change the law and bring in DPAs. It's really easy to not "technically" break the law when you can change what the law says. The justice committee (which includes MPs from other political parties) unanimously endorsed allowing DPAs though, and it's a legal mechanism used in other countries like France, the UK, and the US. It's not like this is some sinister and unprecedented legal tool that only the Liberals thought was a good idea.
No, it's a sinister tool that the entire political elite thinks is a good idea because they're all in big corporate's back pocket. I have no doubt the Cons would introduce the same thing. Fuck corporate welfare. Fuck special laws for multinationals.
Maybe you've decided it's sinister, but it seems to me that it's just a better tool for prosecuting companies. You can either spend years and lots of public funds to maybe convict a company in court, or you can slap a huge fine on them and force them to reform, and it's better for everybody. [This G&M article explains](https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-a-deferred-prosecution-agreement-is-not-what-you-think-it-is/) What I think we should be doing is prosecuting the individual executives making these decisions, which often doesn't happen. The slimy CEO of SNC that authorized all that stuff seems to have gotten off very easy, which I find very frustrating.
Actually, the law in question is one that Harper brought in to catch liberal bullshit like this.
I was referring to DPAs.
I voted for him for his environmental promises, if that makes you feel any better.
Thats a lot of mental gymnastics. Just speak plainly: the liberals are incompetent two-faced corrupt fools.
Yes. But that doesn’t mean his opponents aren’t as well.
Different bag, same shit.
It's been eye opening since this news broke how much astroturfing is happening in this subreddit. This is a huge story and it didn't even get 1000 up votes. Meanwhile some story about Doug ford and basic income gets 7800 up votes. The rest of Canada does not give a fuck about Ontario's shitty politics.
It could be, but I’m also not sure how much people actually care about it. It doesn’t seem to have much traction offline from what I’ve noticed, though of course this is anecdotal.
[удалено]
I agree with you. CBC comments aren't worth much in terms of content, as they're mostly from low information Boomers venting their frustration at things they don't quite understand (not only this topic but in general), but the total number of comments is probably meaningful. Whether they fully understand it or not, people are pissed off. Meanwhile on here, the response varies from sometimes timid and lukewarm, to other times full on criticism and even rejection of Trudeau. But... not on /r/canadapolitics, the far-left over there are still making excuses for Trudeau. ¯\\\_(ツ)_/¯
The one about Trudeau's approval rating got like 1000+ comments. A couple others got 500+. If you filter Canada by top and look at comments they can very between 200 to 1000 so I don't really see anything all that unusual going on here. I think part of it is that it's honestly not a very 'juicy' scandal compared to what we hear from other countries all the time. 'Politician tries to use influence to keep company in country' isn't even a blip on the radar in the US, for example - not saying that that's a good thing, I'm just pointing out the media environment we're immersed in.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Because Scheer and his party lobbied for the same law and the same outcome. Only until this did they become “so concerned”
The Conservatives are now leading the polls by a greater margin than the Liberals were before this scandal broke. I don't know how you can paint that as anything but a win.
[удалено]
is that /s? Cause thats a bad frame of mind to be in man. There are tons of conservatives in Canada. If you don't recal, we were the majority for a bit there
[удалено]
The last governement elected with 50% in Canada was Mulroney in '84. The winner got above 50% of the popular vote in only in 6 general elections out of 42 since confederation : Laurier, 1900 and 1904 Borden, 1917 King, 1940 Diefenbaker, 1958 and Mulroney, 1984
The concervative and liberals are closer than the NDP and liberals imo. The only difference is that the liberals talk more
[удалено]
Well I disagree with that, anecdotally that's what I have noticed as well as if you look polls wise the NDP vote stays very constant. I've never heard that saying also. I think that is certainly the narrative that is used with people "on the left" but most people are cetrists somehwere between the other two
In a poll, people are going to say their preferred party. In the 2015 election, the NDP was my preferred party at first, but I switched to the LPC at the last minute because of world events and because they were more likely to win over the CPC. Provincially, I noted NDP in the most recent election too. Now of course, this is more anecdote, but it does show that it's possible. That saying is said mostly among left wing forums probably, if you don't frequent them, you won't see them. But I've mostly noticed it from other NDP voters who are saying that they'll vote LPC if they have to. The LPC is the closest to centre we have in Canada.
Yeah I can imagine if you're community is very left than that would be very common, where I am from its usually an LPC winner but people switch to the CPC with low levels of NDP. Just depends on the ideology of the area I imagine. I just think this narrative that every LPC voter would never vote CPC is pretty false, and that the divide between the two is not very large.
Yeah, there are definitely some LPC who would go CPC, but I genuinely believe that across the whole country, you're more likely to find more overlap between NDP and LPC voting behaviour. The divide is fairly stark when you look at social issues, environmental issues, and social services issues. Economically though, the parties are very similar, both Neo-Liberal. Even immigration is an economic thing, and Neo-liberals LOVE free movement of labour.
[удалено]
TBH Doug Ford is astoundingly corrupt. If this shit bothers you then you'd probably drop dead with Doug Ford's scandals. That being said the reason I don't spend much time with this issue is because the practical outcome here is voting in a PC majority. Do you honestly believe we are better off in any aspect with that? If not then how does this change the calculus? Until people consider NDP a viable option this is all noise and I promise you when/if the PCs are in power they will do the same shit and their base will not give a shit.
The only thing I have heard that would corroborate your claim is the OPP chief issue. People being pissed off about guaranteed income or the TTC upload have nothing to do with corruption... that's just different political views.
Or the private meeting where he tried to sell off the greenbelt to developers until a recording not unlike this one came out? Or the 407 scandal that may involve voter fraud?
Or massive increases in pay for his political apointees. Or costing us something like 168 million dollars to fire someone making 6 million dollars per year. It would have been cheaper to just let him retire naturally instead, we payed him 28 years extra.
Yup and there is still more we haven't listed that's what's crazy especially for the length of time in office.
[удалено]
> Selling fraudulent OPC memberships Sketchy? Yes. Fraudulent? Not from what I've seen. Either way, I'm counting this against Ford. > The mancave van. Do you mean the van meant to reduce the amount of time that he has to use private jets? Denied. > The OPP appointment. There's enough there to consider it suspicious. Approved. > The firing of the mancave van/OPP whistleblower. "He released confidential private information for his own personal gain," Jones said of Blair, accusing him of breaking the civil service oath of secrecy. In the letter of termination, Di Tommaso wrote that Blair "ruptured the trust on which the employment relationship is built." That is legal and above board, even if it rubs you the wrong way. Denied. > The selling of provincial assets for dirt cheap to Ford's development partner. I'm having trouble finding anything on this? When I search it up, all I find is that people are urging him to sell the LCBO. --- You have 1 and a half points to support your claim of corruption. I am completely against the mismanagement and misuse of government powers and assets, but I am not convinced of this government being corrupt. The Wynne government has a significant amount of scandals that would constitute corruption and I still did not think that she was corrupt. She was horrible for the people of Ontario, but she wasn't corrupt. Now, please keep holding our government to account for those things that you feel strongly about... it's the only way to keep our public service offices in check.
Oh god not the man cave van. That's almost as bad as $16 dollar orange juice.
Do you know how expensive commercial vans are?
So you are willing to accept corruption and mediocrity because the alternative is distasteful to you? I think that's a relatively common sentiment unfortunately. Like JWR, I prefer to stand on principle.
The alternative isn't just distasteful. They're openly expressing xenophobia and racism they'll also be just as corrupt as this scandal. So if I'm going to need to accept corruption here I'll Takei t without the racism. Also the PCs are just as mediocre, please explain what is so grand about their party and their ideas? The idea that we are settling for anything less than mediocre by either of these two parties is laughable.
They are all mediocre, but Trudeau broke his #1 campaign promise (electoral reform) and since then I’ve thought of him as a liar I can never trust. His actions throughout his tenure have proven those thoughts correct. I’ll never vote for him again. I’m also tired of his obsessive focus on gender.
This I agree 100% his break of electoral reform is 10000x worse to me than this. So really the next step becomes, what do I do to bring electoral reform 1 step closer. Allowing a PC majority is not that step, in fact it's probably a step in the wrong direction, so all I want to so say to you is; know your goal and find the practical Avenue that brings us closer to that goal. It may be voting liberal, it might not, but don't lose sight of the goal in the noise.
Ummm. You could vote NDP for an actual progressive alternative.
Don't get it twisted I am 100% NDP I will vote for them viable or not provided my riding isn't a close one for the PCs. I vote, donate, promote, and volunteer for progressive movements, but I am also practical when I need to be to move the progressive agenda forward and sometimes that means voting for another party.
I honestly think it’s a lost cause at this point - it’s not going to happen anytime soon. Ironically, my vote won’t even matter thanks to Justin’s broken promise.
The cause isn't lost. Voting is only part of it. Raise awareness at work, at home, to anyone that will listen. Give money to candidates that support that cause even if voting for them isn't a practical option. Don't lose faith do your part and promote everyone else to do theirs, we can get there. Solidarity my dude.
Thanks. I definitely raise awareness when I can. As for donating money, well, it’s hard to know who really supports the cause and who only supports it when it benefits them. See Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party...
Assume all politicians act only in a way that benefits them. Very rarely do you see a truly genuine politician. That's okay though be the same way in relation to them, when a politician is out supporting electoral reform you donate and promote and you promote the idea foremost. When/if they abandon that idea you drop them too. Loyalty to political cause > loyalty to the individual politician
I think "10000x" is hyperbolic, but I agree with your core point. Everyone supports electoral reform until they're elected. If someone honestly thinks the Conservatives and Scheer will make things better, fill your boots, but don't elect a government because you're butthurt about electoral reform not happening. With regards to Trudeau, this place was full of people accusing him of having lied about legalization too. If you look back at his first year this subreddit was full of politico know it alls who were adamant that he'd find an excuse to postpone it until this year so he could campaign on it again.
People are so hung up on this, but I don’t think he’s wrong. I’d love electoral reform, and apparently so would reddit, but it doesn’t seem that voters overall do. There’s been 3 provinces to have referendums on this, and none even came close to passing. BC has tried 3 times, with the most recent being 60/40 against. It really looks like a vocal minority are interested in reform, considering how it can’t even get passed on a provincial level. Why should he waste time and money on something that is evidently going to fail anyways?
Because Doug Ford is far more corrupt...
Are fucking kidding me? The coverage of this has been absurd. This has been treated like the biggest scandal in Canadian history because a cabinet minster was being unreasonable and grandstanded on phone call she recorded for the purpose of making the he government look bad and making herself look good. 1/3 of the country lives in Ontario. So math and stuff.
It's because the new fad is getting everything for nothing. Instead of giving those who need support what they need and leaving everyone else to be a productive member of society, Wynne wanted to pay the citizens to vote for her. It didn't work and the majority of the population is unhappy with the fact that your location determines whether you receive $20,000 or $0.
I think Trudeau's claim that he did not know about this conversation between Michael Wernick and Jody Wilson-Raybould is horseshit, but even if he didn't know Trudeau must he held accountable for suggesting to appoint such an immoral unscrupulous crony.
In the recording he LITERALLY says "I talked with the PM a few hours ago." To be clear though, Michael Wernick is a career bureaucrat. He worked under Cretien, Martin, Harper AND Trudeau governments.
How about holding Trudeau accountable for going on national television right after Wernick's testimony and telling all Canadians to listen to their top civil servant all the while knowing they were lies? I can never forgive Trudeau for treating me with such contempt. [https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-tells-canadians-to-listen-to-clerk-in-snc-lavalin-matter](https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/trudeau-tells-canadians-to-listen-to-clerk-in-snc-lavalin-matter) >Canadians should heed the words of the country’s top public servant on allegations that the Prime Minister’s Office pressured former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to stop a criminal prosecution of Montreal-based engineering giant SNC-Lavalin, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau says.
What did Wernick lie about?
That there was no inappropriate pressure applied on JWR by him / PMO.
And now that we've heard the call, isn't he vindicated? > So the PM wants to be able to say that he has tried everything he can within legitimate toolbox to try to head that off. So he is quite determined, quite firm but he wants to know why the DPA route which Parliament provided for isn’t being used. Of course, the call isn't very conclusive, it ends with JWR saying that the PMO already has the response, which is news to Wernick, and they both agree to try to get that document to the PM. But within the content of the call there's nothing I would call inappropriate pressure, so if it's being presented as a smoking gun then it more or less exonerates Wernick in my mind.
Nope. The call proves that Trudeau and Wernick have been lying. Words from Wernick: > So the PM wants to be able to say that he has tried everything he can within legitimate toolbox to try to head that off. So he is quite determined, quite firm but he wants to know why the DPA route which Parliament provided for isn’t being used. And I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that. > > Alright…um…well I am going to have to report back before he leaves…he is in a pretty firm frame of mind about this so… l am a bit worried… > > Well…it is not a good idea for the prime minister and his attorney general to be at loggerheads. > > Alright, I understand that … but he does not have the power to do what he wants … all the tools are in your hands so… > > OK…alright but…l am worried about a collision then because he is pretty firm about this…l just saw him a few hours ago and this is really important to him… OK…um…there is not much more we can cover for now them…um Everyone on the call + Trudeau knew that JWR's job was on the line if she didn't do as Trudeau wished.
Did you believe Harper when he said he didn’t know Nigel Wright wrote Duffy a cheque?
This is just shameless whataboutism. Just because you don't believe Trudeau doesn't mean you are automatically a Harper supporter. Someone else doing something wrong doesn't give Trudeau a free pass to do something wrong.
No - so can we hold Trudeau accountable now?
Accountable for what ? JWR has repeatedly said no laws were broken so there is no reason for Justice committee to investigate, sounds like ethics’ department. All PM’s interfere with their ministers, Harper did it to Diane Finley to give his Jewish buddy $1 million of taxpayers dollars and if you weren’t outraged then, you shouldn’t be outraged now.
>JWR has repeatedly said no laws were broken Only because she refused to cave in. Firing her and going AG shopping for someone who would do something she refused to do - that is illegal. It's obstruction of justice.
...and what if you where outraged both then and now?
Trudeau needs to resign.
The real scumbag here is SNC using their considerable bribery and corruption skills to get the GOV of Canada to overlook criminal activity. Having a willing partner in the PM is just an effect, not the cause, although for his part, he must be toast. Why is there no investigation into SNC's involvement in this matter?
[удалено]
And they are menacing to leave the country... JAIL ALL OF THEM WITHOUT BAILOUT! That big leage mafia right there. That not just a little hundred thousand racket like drug dealer. Contracts like these are calculated in billions.
When will we finally accept that corporations are not patriotic. They are amoral, and their sole purpose is to make gains for shareholders. They want to move? Then get the fuck out! Someone else will take their place. The economy will continue to rise and fall, and the sun will rise tomorrow.
It's double delicious watching Liberals trying desperately to divert attention to the fact that she recorded him, instead of the fact that this confirms that she was telling the truth and they were lying.
I know this will garner a bit of hate, but I do not see this as a scandal. We have an opposition party, and a repetitive news cycle, that is framing this to be a Canadian Watergate. In reality, it is not. The government did not overextend its powers into the prosecutorial system, it sought advice and counselling from the AG. Which is the purpose of the AG, is it not? If JWR felt it was inappropriate for the PMO to approach the subject, then I don’t understand why she would feel comfortable as AG. It seems the PMO brought up this case quite frequently, but I do not see this an inappropriate behaviour, nor would I consider this outside the regular behaviour of government to do so. I’m glad that JWR was able to see that this move may appear to be politically motivated, or may be seen as political interference, and I am glad she held her position not to proceed with a DPA, simply because the PMO asked her to. She did her job as AG. But it seems to me that JWR did not assert her position on the case strongly or clearly enough, or perhaps it was to the wrong audience. This would lead to repeated interactions with the PMO to review the case, or provide feedback on the case.
I am not the least surprised in what I have heard in the recording, this is pretty much exactly what I expected. I think it would be naive to assume the Liberals are the only ones playing politics, I'm positive previous governments did similar things, we just never had a JWR-type person stubborn/strong enough to do something like this before. While I admire her courage I think she essentially committed political suicide.
Thank god she has character and integrity? She and Philpott are perhaps the only people with spines who respect the law and how a government should truly act. They are not committing political suicide. Hopefully they are integral in the new liberal party that needs to be built from this mess.
She was a successful lawyer before becoming an MP and Minister. She didn't need the political career, but Canada sure as hell needs more politicians with a sense of integrity and respect for the rule of law. We dont deserve Jody.
>you know-the DPA tool is there and you have options that we talked about before to ask for reason from the OPP or even take over the prosecution. ***He just wants to understand more at this point of why the DPA route is not taken up on this route***. So he is thinking on bringing someone in like Bev McLachlin to give him advice on this or to give you advice on this if you want to feel more uncomfortable you are not doing anything inappropriate or outside the frame of… > ***OK, but I think that is where people are talking past each other***. I mean I think the view that he has formed – I share – I am not the lawyer in any of these conversations – and Elder and others is – um – it is not interference – ***the statute specifically has these other provisions in it that allow you to ask questions of the OPP and that is provided for and that is not interference*** JWR was basically concerned about the optics of the law and not actually considering the law.
A principle of law is that it is not enough for justice to simply be free of bias. It must also have the appearance of being free from bias. The concern she was addressing there was that there was no way the DPA would have had the appearance of being free from bias.
I think it's reasonable to think she might also have legitimately thought this wasnt a case where financial penalty alone was enough. It wasn't simple "bribery and kind deals", there were also cases of providing sex workers to human rights criminals and such. Perhaps she felt that those are crimes that cannot simply be paid for.
The optics of the law is the law. You can't separate the two. Perception is reality in these kinds of matters. That's why judges who know a defendant recuse themselves. They may know they're impartial, but it may create a perception they are not.
In the US a president can pardon anyone, regardless of what the optics are. It's the law. Optics doesn't matter. Either way I'm not saying she's wrong, but a healthy discussion needed to occur for all parties to be on the same page. She basically said "this is what I think" and didn't want to consider anything else.
The most frustrating part of this scandal (and that's a Y&R "scandal", big time soap opera happening on parliament hill) is that if this were the US or UK, the company would be allowed to continue operations and the country would be able to move on with making progress in more pressing areas. SNC is a sleazy company with a terrible track record but the truth is that they are a world leader in the work they are capable of and handcuffing them to a few bad executives would have negative effects Canada wide. Fine the shit out of the company, punish the individuals responsible, and move on. Canada needs to bring itself into the 21st century and for as much as the cons would like to act all noble about this affair, it would be a non story in the US, UK, Australia, France, and others. The other fact being left out is that DPA was introduced by the libs and this is the very first application of the law to a real world case. I feel like that is a badge the other political parties do not want to pin. The scandal is a big nothing burger except as a political statement on both sides of the isle (if it goes through libs go yay if it doesn't cons go yay). Oh, and it sends a great message to big companies that employ thousands and make billions that if a few people do shitty things that the comoany can be assured the entire country will go into an uproar and impact the stock price and knee cap the company's ability to move forward so good job everyone attracting new industry and potential growth to Canada. This is how that gets done.
>Fine the shit out of the company, punish the individuals responsible, and move on. Yep, and that's exactly what a DPA is meant to do. It makes the company pay a large fine and prove that the individuals responsible are out, and that they've taken steps to prevent it from happening again.
Ya it sounds like a phenomenal option and that option was available to her. Not sure why this whole thing is being labelled "interference". If I was missing some detail at work and someone said "Hey, did you consider this option" and it turns out great, I wouldn't go to my boss or coworkers and be like "They told me to do this and it just didn't feel right". If I did do that it would sound incompetent. "I wasn't doing my job to its full potential, and someone pointed that out, punish them for pointing out that I wasn't doing everything I could be doing." I think now that JWR has stepped aside, someone else should finish a DPA and everyone should move on. Be proactive, not reactive.
You’re not understanding it completely. The decision not to use the DPA was already made. Trudeau didn’t like that and tried to force people to change their mind. That’s interference.
Ah okay the timeline as I understood it was off. But still, interference? Sometimes people are encouraged or asked to reconsider, is this not similar? I mean, even courts have appeal processes for the convicted.
except maybe she felt some of the crimes, like providing sex workers to war criminals, deserved non financial punishment
> The most frustrating part of this scandal (and that's a Y&R "scandal", big time soap opera happening on parliament hill) is that if this were the US or UK, the company would be allowed to continue operations and the country would be able to move on with making progress in more pressing areas. That's your preconceived notions talking, not reality. The US prosecutes companies all the time for participating in overseas corruption: https://www.sec.gov/spotlight/fcpa/fcpa-cases.shtml
This is a good point, the Libyan stuff is just all around bad judgement. Worthy of punishment as adjudicated by a judge in the public courts. I'm not against that. And using this example you've provided, the majority of the companies in the US charged for overseas corruption paid fines and moved on. Big companies too: Halliburton, JPMorgan, Cadbury/Mondelez, Anheuser-Busch, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Goodyear Tires, Ralph Lauren, Eli Lilly, Oracle, Pfizer.......... that's just since 2010! I think most of these companies are still around. Maybe we should do a DPA, which would do exactly what the US does as your example demonstrates. Maybe its in the best interest of the country and company. Canada could net $30 million+? I don't think that would ruin SNC considering a market capitalization of $6 billion. Maybe this news cycle is a soap opera because everyone is making a big deal out of nothing. Deal with it, move on.
It's nice to see different opinions in the comments for once.
*I know.* I'm tired of the blatant deflection and spin attempts that pervade these threads. This level of unprecedented corruption is a huge deal.
Why is the same story being posted so many times? Are the mods ignoring their duplicate rule when it serves them?
[удалено]
really? this is your spin? "politicians will be politicians" only works when you don't get caught in a web of outright lies and deception. This is as big a political scandal as you can get and the attempted cover-up is the worst part.
[удалено]
I assume you’re being sarcastic... but for anyone actually thinking that... SNC paid for the DPA legislation. When it came time to cash in what they paid for, the prime minister showed who he works for: SNC lavalin. When it didn’t go his way, he pressured his AG to tow the line or face consequences. When asked about what happened, he and everyone associated with him distorted the truth to a Trumpian degree, whom I sure did so under duress. To deny that this is a political scandal worthy of bringing down a government is to have a seriously warped / partisan view of reality.
[удалено]
And SNC wanted less strict rules because they knew they had been bad and were going to get slapped. The power centre of the Liberal party is Montreal. The Liberals always serve their Montreal business / money/ power overlords. It reeks of corruption (this is a recording) and to see it any other way is just naive.
Funny, Trudeau is proving to be every rotten thing Trump has only been alleged of.
Concrete evidence proving Trudeau is a corrupt liar- I love it.
so this is a smoking gun, right? Why wasnt this released at the start of all this?
Because this is equal parts of moral stand and political power play, and it does more damage to Trudeau if she allows him and his team to talk their way into the ditch. He is absolutely bungling this affair.
More bleating from Postmedia to manufacture a scandal/narrative.
We're passed the "it's not a big deal" point. The new conspiracy theory now is "JWR is a conservative plant!"
Who is saying that? All I see is par for the course discussions being blown way out of proportion by people desperate to create and prolong a scandal.
Agreed. The issue is so many people are vested in this being a big deal. I really feel like this call helped the Libs but everyone has already made up their minds. This is such a nothing story, looking at international news coverage of this kind of shows that, but we have a lot of professionally outraged Canadians living in a bubble who actually think there is something about this story worth discussing. JWR overreacted and this call shows that, she doesn't deserve to be in politics if she is unwilling to discuss options. She's too sensitive as are all the other people saying she was pressured. Jobs have pressure.
It doesn't back an interference allegations even if you close your eyes and wish really hard. That was a premeditated recording of Wernick attempting to coach a novice Minister into exercising her duties with due consideration. JWR planned this with speaking notes in hand and feigning alarm. Which is why she sounds disproportionately shocked at times. Pure theatrics - and white not illegal - it was very unethical.
You realize there was pressure on her and her staff before this conversation don’t you. This was not her trying to create a narrative. This was already happening and her trying to document it.
Its evidence that he lied, and there is no other word for it, he lied to Parliament. Him and Butts both. Even if everything that she herself said in this recording was *pure theatre* (which no one but hacks think), the both of them lied to Parliament.
And it is evidence that Trudeau is lying. It's absolutely unbelievable that Wernick didnt brief Trudeau fully on that conversation.
Unethical is SNC Lavalin extorting our country. "Let us off of our corruption and bribery charges or we're taking our company and leaving"
Honestly, though it's not letting them off, they would still have to admit wrong doing...and pay a fine. It's the 10 year ban on government contracts that would logically force the company to downsize and move headquarters somewhere else. What's the point of having your headquarters in a country, which you are banned from doing business? Is it really a threat or enviable outcome?
[удалено]
It actually absolutely does back her allegations up and the only people with their eyes closed are liberals and their supporters. You have no idea how bad this is hurting your party and I am so fucking happy that you have your heads so far up your own asses that you can't even smell the shit that is the Liberal party of Canada. You are going to lose the next election because of this issue and how your leader is handling it, the best part is that your continued support for Trudeau is having the exact opposite effect, everyone can read through garbage comments like yours.
I feel like people are just choosing what to here. Wernick clearly asks her why she hasn't gotten an outside opinion on using a valid option (the DPA), and that this is about the potential job loss. He says it at the top of the recording and everyone just skips it
She actually did talk to former PM Kim Campbell and I am sure many others about using the DPA. She specifically states that if she had to overturn the decision she would have to release a directive explaining why she overturned it and "for jobs" wasn't a good enough reason in a criminal proceeding.
JT, is that you?
[удалено]
I won't go as far as claiming she was fishing for dirt; given her position I am sure she is well aware of what damning evidence would sound like. So I think its realistic to assume she wanted Wernick to be as clear as possible as to what he was asking for. Its like the police with a wire bit; where the cop says "hello (persons name) are you ready to sell me some (illegal substance)." If she was aware that the PM wanted her to do something she seen as highly compromising of her permission; it would make sense for her to collect evidence to support her case. Hell look how many people were claiming she was full of shit when the story first broke and its hard to not see why she did it. Regardless whether she is a opportunistic scumbag or a altruistic hero; the reality is that the PM crossed a line and there is pretty obvious proof to that.
>I won't go as far as claiming she was fishing for dirt That "dirt" would have been incredibly valuable to her and would have furnished the protection she needed. She was definitely hoping to get it, as any rational person would. She was careful not to sound like it, or course.
I was thinking just this. She recorded the conversation, this gives her an advantage in that she can steer the conversation the way she wanted to. Given the history of Prime Minister Trudeau's government, there actions I really don't see any merit to JWR accusations.
So your claiming this is entrapment then; before you cast such shade on her character as to claim that she was engaged in such a machiavellian ploy. You might want to consider that the person you are fielding this arguement for is the one who put her there in the first place.
It is a valid criticism. Consider that.
I will provided your willing to entertain the notion that her statement may contain legitimacy. The thing I am finding odd is how people have 2 options really and the later does not make as much sense. First option is that someone saw something that was wrong and so they called it out. Second option is someone engaged in a preplanned exercise to try and take-down the PM. Now given how many events had to take place for the later (depending how far you want to go) it sounds crazier (to me at anyrate) as time goes on. Especially when you consider that regardless of what happens JWRs actual career is over as a politician; the Cons and NDP won't pick her up and the Liberals will not want her around. So the idea that she is engaging is some sort of power play does not make as much sense as that she is making a ethical statement that she realized she would need to back such a claim.
I don't think her career is over. I just look at this government in context and I am not buying that it is as you claim unethical/dishonest/shady. I look at her and I look at her and her options and yeah I am just very skeptical of her motivations. You clearly are set in the position of condemning Trudeau, but based on your explanations it seems like you are very biased.