Trudeau 'welcomes' ethics probe of alleged PMO interference in SNC-Lavalin case

[EagleSmack]

Trudeau rejects Philpott’s warning that ‘there’s much more’ to the SNC-Lavalin affair Canadians must hear

The Alt-Left is doing their best to squash this eh?

 

[Twin_Moose]

Trying to yell Squirrel to make us look away Lol

 

[Mowich]

The Alt-Left is doing their best to squash this eh?

Certainly, our poor beleaguered PM - heavy on the /s there - is doing his ineffective best, Eagle. His minions - at least those who remain loyal - are mum on the subject or more likely muzzled.

Edit to add: Mind you the liberal minions are being quite busy in a marathon session taking place in the HOC right now lest they accidentally forget to have the required number present when a vote is called. Maybe we'll hear from them later............but don't hold your breath.

 

[Curious Cdn]

The Alt-Left is doing their best to squash this eh?

There is no such thing as an "Alt-Left", you moronic troll.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Trudeau Says Philpott’s Explosive Interview Shows How Liberals Value 'Diversity Of Perspectives'

Liberal government insists it followed the law, but questions remain

Philpott and Wilson-Raybould can speak freely on SNC-Lavalin in Commons, says former House law clerk

For the past 24 hours, opposition MPs in the House of Commons have staged a series of consecutive confidence votes in an effort to pressure the Liberal government to let former attorney general and justice minister Jody Wilson-Raybould answer more questions before a committee of MPs.
According to a former law clerk of the House, however, that pressure tactic may not have been necessary: Wilson-Raybould and her former cabinet colleague Jane Philpott — who resigned from cabinet in protest over the government's handling of the SNC-Lavalin file — can say whatever they want in the Commons, without penalty.
"If they are speaking in the House, or in a committee proceeding, they are absolutely protected by the law of parliamentary privilege and no legal proceedings of any kind can be brought against them based on what they say in the House or in House committee proceedings," Rob Walsh told host Vassy Kapelos today in an interview with CBC News Network's Power & Politics.
"In my view they are totally at liberty to say whatever they want in the House or in appearing before a committee … Doesn't matter what it is. The right is absolute."
Walsh was the clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons from 1999 to 2012. In that role he was responsible for providing legal services to the Speaker, MPs and committees, and represented MPs in proceedings that involve parliamentary privileges and immunities.
Walsh was offering his insights into the limitations (or lack of them) that affect Wilson-Raybould's ability to say more about her role in the SNC-Lavalin affair and her reasons for resigning from the federal cabinet.
Last month, Wilson-Raybould appeared before the Commons justice committee to answer questions about a Globe and Mail report citing unnamed sources that alleged the minister was pushed by senior people in the Trudeau government to allow the Quebec engineering firm SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal prosecution on fraud and bribery charges by meeting a number of conditions laid out in a remediation agreement.
Once before the committee, Wilson-Raybould told MPs that she had been improperly pressured by 11 officials in the Prime Minister's Office to reverse a decision that denied SNC-Lavalin access such an agreement.
Wilson-Raybould also told MPs that when she was shuffled out of her post in January, she felt it was because she had blocked the remediation deal — a charge PMO officials deny.
The waiver
When MPs asked the former justice minister why she resigned from cabinet, she said she could not answer that question — because speaking publicly about what happened after she was moved to the Veterans Affairs portfolio would not be covered by the waiver issued by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
The waiver (which actually was issued by the Governor General in Council on a recommendation from the prime minister) said Wilson-Raybould was free to tell the committee any cabinet confidences related to her decision on SNC-Lavalin.
That same waiver also said that she could discuss the decision to deny SNC-Lavalin a remediation agreement — even if, in doing so, she had to reveal legal advice provided to government or discussions she had with government officials that may have been covered by solicitor-client privilege.
Once the waiver was made public, Wilson-Raybould, who has hired retired Supreme Court justice Thomas Cromwell to advise her, published a letter on her MP website saying she still could not speak freely.
"The OIC addresses only my time as attorney general of Canada and therefore does nothing to release me from any restrictions that apply to communications while I served as minister of veterans affairs and in relation to my resignation from that post or my presentation to cabinet after I had resigned," she wrote.
Opposition outrage
When Wilson-Raybould was asked by committee members if she would return to answer further questions, she said she would.
When opposition MPs on the committee subsequently heard contradictory evidence from the former clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick, and Trudeau's former principle secretary Gerry Butts, they put forward a motion asking for Wilson-Raybould to return and rebut.
The Liberal majority on the committee voted that request down and, earlier this week, also voted to end the inquiry into whether Wilson-Raybould was improperly pressured, arguing that "Canadians now have the necessary information to arrive at a conclusion."
The decision to shut down the committee inquiry prompted outrage from Conservatives and New Democrats. The Conservative Opposition staged a protest in the Commons this week, tangling the governing Liberals up in a marathon voting session and offering to end it only if Trudeau agrees to let Wilson-Raybould speak.
SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial
But Walsh, an expert in parliamentary privilege, said that Wilson-Raybould could have said whatever she wanted before the committee, regardless of whether or not it violated cabinet confidences or solicitor-client privilege — and she can do so now as well.
The only limitation still facing the former minister, Walsh said, is one of time. As a member of the Liberal caucus, he said, Wilson-Raybould would have to be put on a list given to the Speaker by the government side in order to be given time to speak in the Commons.
Walsh said there are a number of ways Wilson-Raybould could work around that limitation, although he didn't offer specifics.
Former Speaker Peter Milliken told CBC News that an MP can rise in the House of Commons to raise a point of order or a question of privilege, make the argument that their ability to speak freely or act as an MP has been hampered, and then make an extended argument.
Milliken said the Speaker can cut that MP off if the MP wanders off-topic, but most often the MP is given latitude to make at least an initial 15-minute argument.
Jennifer Quaid, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, points out that while Wilson-Raybould would not be sanctioned in any way for what she says in the Commons, her words could have an impact on SNC-Lavalin's ongoing criminal trial.
"In the same way that you might argue that other things that happen outside of the trial might affect the fairness of the trial, so too you might refer to things that happen in the House of Commons. I don't think the House of Commons offers any cover," she said.
"The question that arises, of course, is on what basis (the defence is) arguing that the fairness of the trial has been affected. And that would have some relationship with your chances of success."

 

[Mowich]

Trudeau Says Philpott’s Explosive Interview Shows How Liberals Value 'Diversity Of Perspectives'

Liberal government insists it followed the law, but questions remain

Philpott and Wilson-Raybould can speak freely on SNC-Lavalin in Commons, says former House law clerk

Typical liberal shit-show. He said, she said and no one willing to actually stand up for the truth. I surely hope to see every single one of them sent back to the hinterland come the next election. None of them - not a single one - is worthy of the office or the seat they hold.

 

[Decapoda]

Enough sniping from the sidelines. No more interviews to news magazines. No more letters to constituents. If these women have something to say then the call shouldn't be 'Let Her Speak', it should be 'Stand Up and Speak'.

Patience, I have the feeling Jodi Wilson is not finished speaking just yet...


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...d-plans-to-provide-further-evidence-to-house/


In her letter Thursday, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said she intends to submit evidence that had been asked of her when she testified before the justice committee on Feb. 27.

“A request was made for ‘copies of text messages and emails’ that I referred to in my testimony … I will provide copies,” she wrote. “I also have relevant facts and evidence in my possession that further clarify statements I made and elucidate the accuracy and nature of statements by witnesses in testimony that came after my committee appearance.”

 

[Jinentonix]

Typical liberal shit-show. He said, she said and no one willing to actually stand up for the truth. I surely hope to see every single one of them sent back to the hinterland come the next election. None of them - not a single one - is worthy of the office or the seat they hold.

I hope they get the same treatment the Ontario Liberals got. You can only show your utter contempt for the taxpayer so many times before they tell you to go f*ck yer hat.

 

[Mowich]

Patience, I have the feeling Jodi Wilson is not finished speaking just yet...


https://www.theglobeandmail.com/pol...d-plans-to-provide-further-evidence-to-house/


In her letter Thursday, Ms. Wilson-Raybould said she intends to submit evidence that had been asked of her when she testified before the justice committee on Feb. 27.

“A request was made for ‘copies of text messages and emails’ that I referred to in my testimony … I will provide copies,” she wrote. “I also have relevant facts and evidence in my possession that further clarify statements I made and elucidate the accuracy and nature of statements by witnesses in testimony that came after my committee appearance.”

So the Justice committee is going to set aside their current agenda about Islamophobia and take another look at this? I won't be holding my breath.

 

[spilledthebeer]

Anyway. Trudeau is a rich guy. He can always open an Ashram somewhere.


Cuba, maybe?

IDIOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Lenin told us that religion is "the opiate of the masses"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Thus Communist countries BAN ALL RELIGIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Because Soviet Socialism is all the populace NEEDS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


According to the Commissars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Face it not so CURIOUS....................you are an put of touch and over the hill RED TORY who does not realize how out of touch he is with modern issues!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[spilledthebeer]

There is no such thing as an "Alt-Left", you moronic troll.

There is NO SUCH THING AS ALT LEFT.......................


SAYS THE CHARTER MEMBER OF THE ALT LEFT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE HEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


YOU ARE funny!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


But you DO NOT INSPIRE any Curiosity!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Decapoda]

So the Justice committee is going to set aside their current agenda about Islamophobia and take another look at this? I won't be holding my breath.

I agree, it's doubtful that the Justice committee will take another look at this. Given that the committee is dominated by liberals, I was never under any illusion that any part of this process would be given any amount of serious consideration or objective scrutiny.


Fact is, Trudeau tried to put this to rest days ago with his smokescreen budget ploy, but was miserably unsuccessful...it keeps popping back up despite his best efforts, thanks to certain key individuals and a public that demands the truth. Progress on this issue is going to come from the court of public opinion, not the judicial committee. As long as this keeps dribbling out and stays in focus, Trudeau will have an increasingly difficult time ignoring it and stifling the truth.

 

[Curious Cdn]

I agree, it's doubtful that the Justice committee will take another look at this. Given that the committee is dominated by liberals, I was never under any illusion that any part of this process would be given any amount of serious consideration or objective scrutiny.
Fact is, Trudeau tried to put this to rest days ago with his smokescreen budget ploy, but was miserably unsuccessful...it keeps popping back up despite his best efforts, thanks to certain key individuals and a public that demands the truth. Progress on this issue is going to come from the court of public opinion, not the judicial committee. As long as this keeps dribbling out and stays in focus, Trudeau will have an increasingly difficult time ignoring it and stifling the truth.

It sounds as if Meuller is leaving Trudeau scot free.

 

[Mowich]

I agree, it's doubtful that the Justice committee will take another look at this. Given that the committee is dominated by liberals, I was never under any illusion that any part of this process would be given any amount of serious consideration or objective scrutiny.


Fact is, Trudeau tried to put this to rest days ago with his smokescreen budget ploy, but was miserably unsuccessful...it keeps popping back up despite his best efforts, thanks to certain key individuals and a public that demands the truth. Progress on this issue is going to come from the court of public opinion, not the judicial committee. As long as this keeps dribbling out and stays in focus, Trudeau will have an increasingly difficult time ignoring it and stifling the truth.

Frankly, Dec this whole scandal is long past its due date. I'm fed up with the stonewalling, the innuendo, the sneaking off to the press and letters to constituents. I'm done with that ball-less twerp of a PM who should have booted those two out of caucus weeks ago if only for the sake of the rest of his MPs though their disloyalty should have been more than enough.

I also find it very interesting that just a few days after Philpot's expose in MacLeans, the former AG decided to jump back into the spotlight with hints of more revelations. The timing is suspect.

 

[VIBC]

... their disloyalty should have been more than enough....

In a real democracy politics would not be about loyalty to an individual or a power group.

 

[taxslave]

There is no such thing as an "Alt-Left", you moronic troll.

Mostly because it is an oxymoron.

 

[taxslave]

In a real democracy politics would not be about loyalty to an individual or a power group.

I would amend that slightly. Politicians have a duty to be loyal to taxpayers.

 

[VIBC]

I would amend that slightly. Politicians have a duty to be loyal to taxpayers.

Well yes, but .... WHICH taxpayers?

 

[pgs]

I would amend that slightly. Politicians have a duty to be loyal to taxpayers.

What politicians should be doing is watching and controlling the bureaucracy , which appears to be ever increasing in size and scope . Until or unless the bureaucracy is brought under control Canada cannot hope to run balanced budgets and show fiscal restraint. This applies to all democracies, and most are doing poorly at it .

 

[Hoid]

What politicians should be doing is watching and controlling the bureaucracy , which appears to be ever increasing in size and scope . Until or unless the bureaucracy is brought under control Canada cannot hope to run balanced budgets and show fiscal restraint. This applies to all democracies, and most are doing poorly at it .

The Cretien Liberals took over from the highest spending government ever and reversed our course.

It lasted until Harper took over.

Now we are back to growing.

Fron the halcyon days of 2012

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/rep...ssage-more-important-than-ever/article535380/

Headlines inform but don't necessarily reveal. Time reveals.

Based on headlines alone, most people would probably assume that Canada has a bigger federal government than it had 50 years ago. But we don't – not, at any rate, in relative terms. In fiscal 1962-1963, a half-century ago, the federal government spent 16.8 per cent of the country's gross domestic product, the same percentage it spent in 1920.

Yet in fiscal 2011-2012, Ottawa will spend only 14.4 per cent. By fiscal 2015-2016, it will spend only 12.9 per cent. For the most part, the headlines missed a most remarkable story: "Government shrinking fast."

When Liberal Jean Chrétien became prime minister in 1993, Ottawa was still spending 23.1 per cent of GDP. In its first 10 years, his government reduced that share to 16 per cent – back to the level it held during the politically frenzied days of prime ministers John Diefenbaker and Lester Pearson.

The Chrétien government cut Ottawa's relative size by one-third, and didn't try to hide its strategic objective of deeper cuts ahead. Make no mistake: That government knew what it was doing. In 2000, in what Dalhousie University economist Lars Osberg presciently (though disapprovingly) spoke of as the government's "millennial vision," Ottawa publicly announced its formula for long-term downsizing "in the 21st century." In the future, it said, the government would limit spending growth to two benchmarks: inflation and population growth.

With firm economic management from his finance minister, Paul Martin, Mr. Chrétien finished his three terms in office with a unique accomplishment – a decade (1993-2003) in which Ottawa reduced spending, as a share of GDP, every year. (In contrast, Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau increased the size of government every year during his first eight years in office, expanding the federal state by 50 per cent, from 16 per cent of GDP to 24 per cent.)