The only thing worse than a cad . . .

. . . is the one who engages in gossip about him.

The CPC is walking a dangerous path -- before Monday's English debate, they said there were still lingering questions about why Trudeau left his teaching job and suggested he would have the opportunity to answer those questions at the debate. Nothing came of it. People kind of murmured and let it go.... but now today they've put out a press release that a Conservative Party member will have a statement about Trudeau's 'past behavour' at 3:30 p.m.

You want to govern the country and you're trading in salacious gossip? You're putting out teaser press releases.... ffs -- if it's that important, just say it. NO GAMES.

If this has anything to do with what the Buffalo Chronicles posted this morning and True North went to press with at noon - some 'scandal'. A seventeen year old girl was a flirt and had a big crush on Justin Trudeau and his then roommate (who has since been convicted of child porn -- which again, has nothing to do with Trudeau). Her yearbook comment was about him (using initials -- they even went so far as to check that no student was also JT). And so? Lots of students have lots of crushes on lots of high school teachers. He can't help being the object of some teenager's crush. A yearbook comment - by a teenage girl? This is news???

Justin Trudeau is a lot of things -- and has done a lot of things -- stupid, bad, immoral, but there is no scandal in being hero worshipped. To imply (without evidence) that what happened at Westpoint was any more than a one-sided infatuation on the part of a student, is just wrong ... and it's foolish on the part of a political party that wants to govern.

Trudeau is tripping himself up. He can barely get out a coherent sentence, he and his crew have exploited young children to show contrition for his blackface episodes, they're pulling out more video of Andrew Scheer talking about gay marriage -- they are running scared -- and the CPC wants to mire themselves in the muck of innuendo?

This election has been disgusting on so many levels. Usually I can content myself that it's Trudeau and his band of malicious minions throwing the most dirt --- but when the side I'm counting on for some propriety dives this low -- it taints them and as someone who was supporting them, it affects me. Maybe I'm jumping the gun, but even the Enquireresque press release … it's bad form. It's off-putting. It doesn't pique people, it pisses them off. What is wrong with the people who run these campaigns? HAVE THEY EVER TALKED TO A REAL LIVING HUMAN??

Scheer seems like a nice guy. I think he'd be an unspectacular prime minister but at least he wouldn't be ruinous -- and right now with the road the country is on, that's okay by me -- but if he supports his campaign team dealing in this kind of filth, I will be staying home on October 21.

You can blame me and people like me for Trudeau being re-elected, but I'm starting to feel I have no option anymore. I had no respect for Trudeau, and what respect I had for the Conservative Party is quickly burning up.

Can't wait until October 22. Don't really care what I wake up to. We deserve better than anything we're being offered.

canadianna

State of the Union

Jonathon Kay wrote a piece in Foreign Policy magazine about how this election has turned so dumb.

He says that in absence of any real, substantive issues, parties have drawn on tribalism, identity politics, cancel culture, etc., saying and doing anything they can to make the other guy look bad for things that happened a long time ago, or things that maybe, really don't matter.

If you read the article (which I suggest you do) he's mostly right. This has been a bitter and nasty campaign, just like Justin Trudeau predicted it would be, almost exactly one year ago. Don't think Trudeau could have anticipated that he would be the one painted black (forgive the reference) but even back then, the Liberals were amping up for a bile-filled campaign and they have what they wanted.

Back to the article . . . Kay is right -- this has been a really dumb campaign. If you've read anything I wrote during previous elections, it's not miles ahead of the others for stupidity and viciousness -- I think the difference this time is the social media affect. Recent elections had their own threats of 'secret agendas' and 'soldiers in our streets with guns' and of course the accusations of racism, homophobia and an abortion ban -- funny how all of that negativity seems to have come from one side.... but I digress....

This campaign has been stupid and nasty, and that absence of substantive issues is not the reason. The reason is, that no one wants to really talk about the substantive issues. We talk about gun control (again), nationalized pharmacare and daycare (again), abortion (again), immigration - or migration (again) and we know that none of these things will change significantly regardless of who is in power. 

What we aren't talking about is that Alberta is dying -- the oil and gas industry has been hit hard by the inertia of the current government -- an inertia that is meant to appease environmentalists while pretending they still intend to build pipelines. It's all a game of smoke and mirrors and the rest of Canada had better realize that in terms of this industry, and in terms of ALL trade issues, this government has failed drastically -- we can't get product to market and we have former trading partners boycotting our goods due to political BS. So far, Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes haven't noticed … B.C. is getting a little taste --- but the status quo is not sustainable and that is a discussion that NEEDS to be had in Canada because Alberta is still footing the bills that hugely benefit Quebec, and which takes the pressure off others --  but no one cares because there aren't enough ridings to make a difference and NONE of the parties needs to care because it's safe Conservative territory. 

Maybe an election is not the time to sit down and explain to the rest of the country how transfer payments work, and how unfair it is that Alberta is funding programs it can't provide for its residents. Maybe it's not the time to talk about the personal bankruptcies and closed businesses. Maybe it's not the time to talk about the myopia of a country that is literally destroying itself from within.

This is not an election devoid of 'real' issues. We are a country that cannot speak our truths to each other. We are a country that elevates some citizens above others, based on geography, language, history and culture. We are a country that is risking not being a country because we really don't understand the value of our natural resources, or of ALL of our people.

It's a sin.

canadianna

#Blackface

If this doesn't take him down, nothing will.

How can my fellow Canadians, people who howled at the 'homophobia' of Andrew Scheer, whose recently revived speech echoed the sentiments of the vast majority of the Western world in that time period -- how can the people who reviled and cheered the cancelling of an SNL comedian for repeatedly using racial epithets -- how can those same people dismiss Justin Trudeau's blackface x 3 (+?) scandal as though it was as one Toronto Star contributor said: as Canadian as hockey.

FFS -- Justin Trudeau can violate ethics, break the law, interfere in legal administration, railroad an admiral to subvert blame, interfere with financial administration, refuse to adhere to his own policies, violate conflict of interest, allegedly grope a woman -- because there are no pictures -- there is no easy BLACK and WHITE... all of those issues require some level of understanding of historical actions, chronology of events, workings of various governmental departments, or conflicting versions from various external parties.... Justin Trudeau wore blackface at least three times in his life (that he can remember). There is photographic evidence of this pathetic display of either racism or poor judgement. And people are giving it a shrug, accepting his 'my privilege gave me blinders' bullshit.

Is Justin Trudeau racist? I'm going to pass on answering that and just say, I guess the difference between someone like Mr. Trudeau, and someone like me, is I grew up in a multicultural neighbourhood, and I've raised my kids in the same environment. When he says his privilege prevented him from grasping the racism of his actions, he's telling the truth. Someone like Mr. Trudeau has never met a person of colour who wasn't a prop or a vote. 

Andrew Scheer blinked

Much as I disagreed with Michael Cooper's grandstanding at the Justice Committee, expunging his statement from the record is plain stupid, and it's been done to give the impression that what Cooper said, was far worse than it actually was.

This is the problem with the world today - people aren't content to disagree, or disavow, or dissect and discuss -- they feel the need to erase points of view, and muzzle opinions that don't follow their own ideology. That, and blowing things out of proportion, implying meaning that isn't there - are all tactics of people who are trying to control the way people think and speak about ideas.

Michael Cooper's words were not hate speech. They did not incite violence. He was rude to a witness and then quoted from a mass-murder's manifesto -- which really, shouldn't be a problem since it wasn't to agree or promote, but to enlighten. But in Canada (and much of the Western world) you just know that the liberal fascists will pounce on that as stoking the flames of populism or some such BS, which is exactly what happened. Cooper should have known would happen, which is why he should have referenced the document without directly quoting.

But removing the cited passage from the record? Why? It wasn't scary - it had nothing to do with violence, and everything to do with ideology and motivation. How is this controversial at all?

Andrew Scheer took the bait and removed Cooper from the committee. Mistake. An apology by Cooper for being rude should have sufficed, and Andrew Scheer should have stood by his MP for quoting the manifesto because it was done to support a point and didn't say one violent or hateful word against any group or person (except conservatives). Scheer dropped the ball, yet again. It's okay for someone like me to comment and say Cooper shouldn't have read from that paper - but Andrew Scheer is the Conservative leader, hoping to become my PM. He should have stood up for his MP and for conservatism in general by saying - Cooper was rude and has apologized for that, but reading from the writings of a terrorist is not a hate crime, and was necessary to counter the assertion of the witness. Period. And Cooper should still be on that committee.

This is how liberals win. They decide to be outraged over something that is not outrageous, and conservatives get wobbly and concede ground.

I hate Justin Trudeau. Maxime Bernier and his party have become too extreme for mainstream politics. But Andrew Scheer is tepid at best. He's so eager to please everyone that he's lost his moral compass.

The only thing that was wrong with Cooper's actions was his manner. A simple, okay - he was rude but he was right - would have changed the channel. Instead, days later the Liberals are saying that Scheer didn't go far enough - that Cooper should be removed from caucus. Given the extremity of the punishment Scheer meted out, that makes sense, because expulsion from the committee conceded that Cooper's actions were that extremely egregious, and if that's the case, how do you justify keeping him in the fold?

People aren't reading whole stories. Except conservatives, did anyone really bother to scroll down far enough to see, or play the video to hear exactly what Cooper said? Probably not. So most people are taking it from the headlines that a bigot still sits on the opposition benches and Andrew Scheer won't expel him.

The only one to blame for the perception is Andrew Scheer. He gave them fodder.

canadianna

Conservatives need to walk a tighter line

You'd think by now, Canada's (C)onservatives would understand that they can't just speak, they need to think first -- how will this be heard? And  -- how will my words affect conservatives in general.

No other party seems to have that issue. Liberals all speak as one giant unit these days, but if one goes off message, no one tries to tie the whole brand to the words. Same with NDP and Greens. There are nutters and cranks in both parties, some elected, some not - they're just who they are and don't seem to taint the parties through their nuttery.

It's different with conservatives - whether they're elected members, or just self-proclaimed conservatives, a controversial conservative voice draws the accusation of broader and deeper scariness hidden in the core of the party- scariness that's just waiting for an election win to rear its ugly head and make this country an alt-right haven.

It's crazy, sure. But I'm thinking that this is why Stephen Harper required such discipline within the his ranks. There has never been the group-think in the CPC that exists within the Liberal Party now, but there was a chill on speaking out about some issues because of how they would be taken out of context by the other side and by media. Better I suppose, to have MPs silent than to say stupid things on committee as Michael Cooper did to a Muslim witness during his submission on online hatred.

Cooper was not wrong in what he said -- the witness had tied recent racist mass shootings to conservatism. Based on the shooters' own manifestos and online presences' for the most part had made it clear that they were not conservatively politically aligned, but rather, in one case, supported Bernie Sanders, and in another felt more aligned with China's politics. Still - in response to the witness, Cooper said that he should 'be ashamed' for having implied conservatism was to blame, and then proceeded to read from the manifesto of one of the killers.

Stupid.

No one should be 'ashamed' for how they've perceived racial or religious hatred. The fact that this man felt or believed that these mass murders are conservatively motivated means that conservatives have more work to do distancing themselves from that sort of hatred. Yes, the media fosters the narrative, but Cooper helped no one by trying to embarrass and humiliate someone who was sharing a personal (or his group's) perspective on violent hatred that was directed at members of his community.

Cooper's indignance at the speaker's concerns about conservatives switched the narrative from the actual online haters to conservatives. Better he had not challenged, or if he felt he must, better to simply point out the factual errors and move on. But better still to simply listen and learn. Getting defensive just makes you look defensive. It does nothing to change the other person's point of view. Does Cooper think this person is now contrite and sorry for the errors of his ways? NO, the man is going to feel pissed and attacked - and so he should. He was there to give perspective - even if it's factually wrong - much of the response to online hatred is emotional. This is how this man feels. The only way to challenge his perceptions is to ensure that those representing conservatism don't act like assholes. Cooper failed, big time.

Maybe it isn't fair that conservatives need to be more careful when they speak, but it's reality.

Michael Cooper has stepped back from his 'ashamed' comment but stands by the rest of what he said. His mouth has drawn negative attention to conservatives about an already contentious issue, where conservatives often come out looking bad even when they say and do all the right things.

Cooper had a duty to as a member of the committee to be respectful to the witness. He failed.

He had a duty as a Conservative MP, to speak in a manner that would not cast a negative light on his party by misrepresenting their position. He failed.

Cooper had a responsibility to simply be a decent human,  and to understand that people testifying at these committees are emotional, and to show some restraint and compassion when responding. He failed.

Michael Cooper should be ashamed.

canadianna

Afghanistan War Memorial

I can think of only one reason that the Trudeau government held the opening ceremony quietly, without inviting the families of those being honoured, without media attention, without any sort of public observance.

There can be only one reason that the memorial will not be open to the public, and might only be open to veterans and their families, or interested groups, by appointment.

I haven't seen anyone else say it, but by celebrating the lives of those who died, and by honouring the service of all of the veterans in that war, Canada is acknowledging WITH PRIDE (hopefully) their contributions to a war that took place in a Muslim country, against Muslims.

This government would have difficulty publically celebrating those who fought in Afghanistan because it likely wouldn't go over well with the Muslims within their caucus and perhaps the Muslim community as a whole (although I can't speak with any authority on that).

Given the aggressive responses of Trudeau's Muslim ministers to anything that might seem vaguely critical or questioning of Islam, and their quick accusations of 'Islamophobia' or insensitivity, it's hard to imagine them being supportive of this memorial. What other reason could this government have for hiding a reminder of this war and those who served in it?

Tucked away in some secret place, where access can only be had by a certain few, maybe they're hoping that going forward, Canadians will forget all about Afghanistan and not cause offense to the Muslim community. Out of sight, out of mind, right?

canadianna

 

Ford Nation

The last provincial election was tough for me. The Liberals deserved to be booted. The NDP didn't deserve to govern, but I really don't like Doug Ford. He strikes me as ham-fisted and thoughtless. He thinks he's like his brother, but he isn't. Whatever you thought of Rob Ford, he helped people. He was in the job for two reasons -- to be liked and to be of service. He was well liked by those he served, and he made an effort to serve everyone who asked.

When Patrick Brown was first accused of sexual misconduct, and summarily excised from the PC leadership, I wondered if the Liberals had something to do with it. Now I wonder if it was an internal thing -- or external, but from the right.

Ford's election as PC leader was an astonishing reversal from the *expected*. Comparisons to Trump ring true to me, not just on the surface level, where both men are bombastic and boorish and rather stupid, but also in the manner to which they came to power. Few within the kingmaker class would have predicted either outcome. I'm not suggesting that democracy was thwarted in any way, or that their victories were invalid, simply that a series of unforeseen events shaped the races in ways no one could imagine.

I'm not a fan of how Ford operates, in what seems to be a very autocratic way. He has smart people around him, a couple of whom might have been more deserving of the leadership than he, but everyone seems to defer to Doug. I concede that this is pretty much always the case in politics -- Trudeau, Harper, Trump .... so maybe Ford is just following precedent. What bothers me I suppose, is that while I feel like the PCs are my 'side', with him as their leader, they aren't. It's like being in a political wilderness. I suppose anti-Trump Republicans feel this way.

Even if you agree with everything Ford is doing, his manner creates distrust and apprehension, even from people who are onside --  because although he was voted in on the promise of change, people want change as a process - not some bullish demolition, but a gradual dismantling and renewal. Sometimes, radical change is required, but some things - autism funding, libraries, public health, endangered species et al - are not necessary all at once. Rapid change requires thoughtful and thorough communication. Change for the sake of change serves no one. And reversals and tweaks to proclamations just prove you haven't thought things out before you've spouted off.

Doug Ford was no more ready to run a province than Justin Trudeau was to run the country. Just because he's 'conservative' doesn't mean I can support him. Even when I think they're doing something right, Doug's manner of handling every policy, every idea, makes it feel suspect.

Ford has become the PC brand. To buy-in, you have to take him and I don't. And what bothers me about the small-minded, blustery way he governs, is that he appears to be speaking for conservatives and I fear that will be used to our great disadvantage come federal election time. He comes off as mean-spirited and dumb. I think he is a real liability to the CPC. So long as Doug keeps talking, the 905 is very much in play. Before the provincial election, Doug was a novelty. Now he's the reality and I think a lot of people are second-guessing that decision - doesn't matter that the Liberals were truly a worse option. That's not going to factor in when people are at the voting booth in October. Enough Canadians like to see themselves as liberal anyway, that Doug Ford's exhibition of 'conservatism' could mitigate all of Trudeau's disasters.

canadianna

Cratering too early

Often we see that a politician peaks too soon before an election for his own good. Then he'll plateau or even drop in the polls and when the vote finally comes, everyone recalls those high numbers back when, and wonders what happened that the bottom fell out.

Timing is everything in politics. A six-week election cycle is too long for many candidates. After four, the wheels start to fall off. People can't sustain the energy, and positivity (or negativity) required to keep up the act for so long.

With our current system of fixed elections, the next election cycle starts the day after the last. Everyone is constantly campaigning. Voter fatigue is a huge issue, I think. It can take an epic event to engage or enrage voters to step out of their apathy and actually care about an election when they're forced to digest politics daily.

That epic event happened for Justin Trudeau back in February, and has been happening ever since.

While the SNC-Lavalin affair and its various collateral boondoggles might seem like a gift to the opposition parties, timing might be the saving grace of the Prime Minister.

We've had two full months of the scandal and its subsequent fallout, and the Prime Minister, while showing signs of agitation, remains leader of his party, with the support of the majority of his caucus. His personal polling numbers have tanked, yes, but the Liberals haven't dropped to levels that really challenge their ability to rise up and win come October. There has been no surge in any of the opposition parties, and there is no reason to believe that it might happen at all, if it hasn't by now.

The Liberal Party election strategy has, for a long time, been to promote fear, hatred and division. It used to be Stephen Harper's hidden agenda, but they've upped their game this time -- apparently white nationalists are lurking everywhere in this incarnation of the Conservative Party, along with people who want the world to end in twelve years because of their Climate Change Denial, and there might even be some conservatives who hold socially conservative views on marriage and abortion when we all know, you're not allowed to think like that anymore, even if you never say it out loud, and even if neither of those subjects is an election issue.

Twitter is a shit-flinging show, with Liberal MPs testing what will either stick, or rile enough CPC supporting tweeters to bare their teeth and push back.

They will have plenty of time to provoke and to screenshot and to use ordinary people's frustration at being vilified, as fodder for their vile accusations.

That's politics I guess. Use the weakness of the enemy -- and I guess that's the thing that bothers me most. I don't believe that conservatives view liberals or progressive as enemies, but I do believe that Liberals see us that way.

In an election campaign that has not yet begun, Canadians who are going to hate him have already reached peak-hatred of PMJT, but I don't think that Justin Trudeau and the Liberal Party are even close to their peak-hatred of us.

Not looking forward to all the things they plan to accuse me of, and the names they're going to call me. I'm already weary of it and it's barely started. And I dread if their messaging works on vulnerable and fearful people, and propels them to victory on the crushed soul of the nation.

Sounds dramatic, I know. But this is personal. It's meant to be. They want to make you uncomfortable and angry and bitter, because that's how they need other people to see you.

Shame.

canadianna

Just watch him

I used to just think Justin Trudeau was an airhead. Nice enough guy - if he'd done the Ben Mulroney thing and gone into entertainment, a harmless sort of fellow that you couldn't help but like.

His ascension to power has proved him anything but.

There seem to be a lot of people willing to just brush past the SNC-Lavalin thing because it isn't a world-class scandal. Its elements are so simple. Right/wrong. Lies/truth.

It's like some people really think that everyone gets it wrong now and again, so what?

And everyone tells a white lie every once in a while, what's the big deal?

Making a mistake is not a huge deal. Most people are inclined to forgive. We don't want to hold grudges and be angry. Takes too much effort and energy. It's nice to hear a sincere 'I messed up' without an accompanying 'but .... ' or 'I didn't realize...so it's your fault for not having said....'

That didn't happen here, but we can assume they're at least sorry they got caught, right?

So, the mistake is not the issue. It's not about the pressure put on the former AG to do anything. Let's assume it truly was a mistake-- let's give them that.

The mistake is just the opening of our window into Justin Trudeau's lying, self-important, unrepentant, egomaniacal, sinister soul -- yes sinister. The efforts that man and his team have gone to in order to pretend they did nothing wrong is just unreal. It borders on insane. It's like this frenzied outpouring of venom and bile about anyone who dares stray from the narrative -- and even some who had no skin in the game. From the smear-tactics used against Wilson-Raybould, to the leaking of private information about a SCC nominee... and all of the miniscule, mean-spirited steps in between.

It's the lies that matter. That's who he is.

Yesterday he suggested in a speech to The Daughters of the Vote, that this was somehow something to do with diversity and choosing between two women (Wilson-Raybould and  Minister Freeland) as though there was some connection between them that was relevant to anything that's gone on - and what? Lack of trust, so diversity? If that last couple of sentences make no sense, they're about as coherent as Trudeau was in that talk.

Anyway, Justin Trudeau remains an airhead. He's as stupid as I always thought, but he's an airhead with power which is pretty scary. I think much of what's wrong with him is daddy issues. He's living out his father's legacy, pitting region against region, finding reasons for fear, and having one after another 'just watch me' moments.

I can't stand watching him anymore.

canadianna

Who's sorry now

So he said it. For once in his life, Justin Trudeau said 'sorry' for something he did.

This apology came swiftly and almost seemed real -- but here's why I'm not impressed:

It was at that $1,500 per person fundraiser where Justin Trudeau was at his most authentic.

This wouldn't have happened at a townhall -- he'd have known it was public. But there, with his fellow Laurentian elites, Trudeau was in his element and he played to them. This is who he really is -- this is his comfort zone. He rose to their laughter and struck again, and again. These are his people. He was at home, and enjoying the mirth of the crowd as he dismissed this young woman and her pedestrian concerns.

Had the whole thing not been filmed, he'd have never spared an ounce of 'sorry' on her.

In that moment, it didn't occur to him that someone who spent $1,500 to be there  must have been very serious about their concerns.

But what's $1,500 to a Trudeau or his fellow well-heeled Liberals. Chump change.

The Liberal Party, its members, its MPs --  should start really thinking about whether they want to be associated with this kind of bozo eruption.

canadianna

PM for who?

He's shown often, that he is the Prime Minister for Liberals -- and not all Liberals -- Liberals who agree with him. His contempt for his own MPs and fellow liberals when they don't fall into line with Trudeau-think is well known. Don't dare even try to run for the party if you have any reservations about abortion whatsoever. You're not allowed. You must think along party lines -- Fine - anyone who wants to belong to a party like that - your issue. You march in-step if that's your thing.

But what about the rest of us -- or more importantly, the least of us? The MOST vulnerable people in Canadian society are those living on reserves. Their issues are life and death, every single day. And government after government has failed them.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised to change the way we deal with First Nations issues. He sure has. Never have I seen a Canadian Prime Minister treat someone with a genuine, legitimate concern with such utter derision. Listen to the following clip from Free Grassy on Twitter, where someone asks her Prime Minister why nothing has been done in over 500 days, to remedy the problem of mercury in the water in Grassy Narrows:

She says: people from Grassy Narrows are suffering from mercury poisoning and you committed...

He says: Thank you for being here tonight. Thank you for your donation.

OMFG. The disrespect... the disregard... the distain. The utter lack of empathy. HOW is this man our Prime Minister???

She paid $1500 for the opportunity to raise her concern - look what she got in return.

She does not deserve this man as Prime Minister. None of us do.

canadianna

Justin has jumped the shark

Like with most things, a sincere acceptance of culpability and an apology likely would have washed the SNC-Lavalin scandal away.

People like moments when other people genuinely admit their humanity: "I made a mistake."

Justin Trudeau doesn't know how to do that. We've all noted that he is an ace at apologizing for the wrongs of others, the problem is, he has no ability to see wrongs committed my himself.

Whether it was his upbringing, or whether its a character flaw, Justin Trudeau believes Justin Trudeau is always right, otherwise, actor that he is, he'd have been able to feign a competent enough sorry to pass. But Justin's attitude seems to have been -- why should I? and instead he's spent the better part of two months blaming and vilifying others.

Well, it's too late for sorry now. Even his boldest supporters have to see what he is, and if they want to soil themselves and keep him afloat, so be it, but I think even average Canadians are shocked at his utter disregard for the law and for us.

Attempts to paint people as racist or homophobic aren't going to float this time around, because they're aimed at all of us this time -- because all of us see through his charade of 'nice'. He never was nice. He could seem nice because he was rarely challenged and he lives a life of absolute unmitigated privilege. Anyone could seem nice if they never had to work or worry. He doesn't understand real-life stress - and now that he's facing some challenges - he's made some very suspect decisions.

I've never been a fan of Justin Trudeau, but it bothers me how easily he waltzed in, charmed the world and decided he could do all the wrong things because he was just so sure that he had all the right reasons.

It was too easy for him to take the helm of this country when he'd never done a serious thing in his life. And he still doesn't see that it's time for him to go. He's still trying to find ways to blame everyone else. I used to hope he was trounced come election time, but he's doing so much damage, I hope for once in his life he does the right thing and resigns.

Angry Liberals have to start aiming their venom in the right direction.

canadianna

 

A different take...

My younger daughter and I commute to and from downtown together every day, and lately many of our conversations have been about politics.

Yesterday, I told her what I thought about Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott remaining Liberals in the wake of all that's happened. I was surprised that she a had a completely different take, and it's shifted my perspective some.

My daughter doesn't believe these two MPs should be chased from their chosen vocation by men in authority trying to push them around. She believes that they showed their principles and integrity when they resigned their cabinet posts and elected to sit as backbenchers on the basis of their convictions.

She believes that if they had quit the Liberal Party, despite identifying with the tenets of their policies, they would be depriving their constituents of the representation they deserve, and undermining their own futures.

She believes this scandal will pass, and should these women remove themselves from the Liberal Party at this stage, they would have no standing going forward. By forcing Trudeau to either put up with them, or kick them out, they have asserted their voices as moral compasses of the team, and despite some lingering animosity in the short-term, the party will need to renew, and it's people like Wilson-Raybould and Philpott with their positive images, and their moral fortitude that will be the force to drive that change. If they leave now, they lose out on that opportunity and it won't come around again.

My daughter believes that by persevering in what must be a very uncomfortable environment, these woman are forcing a mouldering party to take stock. Every Liberal MP will at some point, face a reckoning about the events of the past few months, and will be forced to stand with the status quo, or step away. Whether the Liberals get re-elected or not, the behaviour of individuals during this time will matter - if only as part of the historical record. Honour matters.

So, despite my own concerns about Wilson-Raybould and Philpott appearing to try to serve two masters, I see where perhaps the only masters they are trying to serve are their own consciences.

canadianna

Team players

Paul Wells' interview with Jane Philpott left me with the same feeling as Jody Wilson-Raybould's statement to her constituents. Nice sentiments, but conflicting.

Put in terms of a personal relationship, since this scandal broke, the behaviour of the PM and his closest people, toward Jody Wilson-Raybould (and frankly, many other women in his sphere) parallels an abusive partnership. I don't think it's a stretch.

• there's denial (haven't a clue what she's talking about - didn't happen at all)
• incredulity (I didn't realize - if only she had told us how she felt)
• rationalization (only happened because Scott Brison resigned)
• minimizing the problem (20 times over four months? That's nothing)
• calling the accuser a liar (the people accused are too good to have done what she said)
• blaming the accuser (she could have said 'no' and if it really happened, she would have quit)
• resentment about going public (we're like family, this should have been handled internally)
• suggesting the accuser had ulterior motives for her accusations (didn't want to lose her dream job)
• promises to be better (this is a learning experience)
• shutting down the conversation (we've heard as much as we need to hear. It's over)

All of the above behaviours are how abusers manipulate their accusers. People use the term gaslighting far too loosely these days, but when you look at the consistent efforts of the Liberals to discredit the accuser and shut her down, I think it applies here. Just because Wilson-Raybould hasn't backed down, doesn't mean that isn't the goal of the efforts.The mastery of the Liberal at the techniques of abusive partners is really quite astonishing.

It makes me wonder how anyone who has been on the receiving end of this sort of behaviour can continue to be around, and more suprising -- to represent the brand that is inflicting it on them.

I can't imagine still stumping for a team I felt was cheating, or manipulating or interfering -- and yet these women are. Why? One bad apple does spoil the lot if it's not purged. It hasn't been - and worse, every effort is being made to sustain the status quo and to undermine the testimony, opinions and public statements of these women. Why are they still willing to play on the team? Especially when both women contend that we only know part of the wrongdoing -- that there's more (and, my inference) worse to be heard.

None of this makes sense to me. The political interference part, I could forgive on a personal level. The people surrounding the PMO felt they were doing the right thing, maybe didn't feel they were crossing a line -- okay -- let's give them that -- but everything they've said and done since this became public has been done with the aim of maligning Wilson-Raybould, and now Philpott by extension. On a personal level, how do you just shrug off the ongoing campaign to shut you up and to paint you as hysterical and vindictive?

I don't get it. Most of Liberal team has backed Trudeau on this one. I don't know how these women can reconcile their decision to stay on that team.

canadianna

Fizzle

So, I guess it's pretty much over. It's hard to sustain outrage without coming off as unhinged.

Much as the Conservatives were right to be outraged during AdScam, their reactions to the scandal hurt their leader and their brand, causing the then, unknown entity of Stephen Harper, to be labeled 'angry' -- a perception that stuck amongst a lot of average Canadians.

They're facing the same dilemma here. Some of their strongest and most talented voices are going to be painted in a negative light. Doesn't matter if they are justified. It only matters how it's framed.

Again, I believe Jody Wilson-Raybould, but her silence right now is a little eerie. She's letting the opposition parties do the dirty work of stirring things up on her behalf. Maybe she feels there's little else she can do, but after the show by the Liberals at the Justice Committee, wouldn't she feel even more indignant about their response, and have some sort of response herself? I don't believe she's just saving it all up. I don't know what to think anymore... but whatever momentum there was to find the truth, it's waning.

Justin Trudeau now says he's looking forward to working with both Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott in the future, so it would appear that bygones are bygones as far as he's concerned -- and the messaging Wilson-Raybould sent out to her constituents? I guess that just means she's satisfied for injustice to be done.

Between the breezy way the Liberals have effectively shrugged away this scandal, and the idea of the upcoming election being based more on identity politics, I think a lot of us are bracing ourselves for the prediction made last year by Justin Trudeau, that this campaign will be the nastiest in history.

I'm not looking forward to it.

The 'us' against 'them' rhetoric has already started, aided in part by the timing of Friday's terrorist attack on the mosque in New Zealand.

What better way to respond to a tragedy than to exploit it.

And then there's that sly way the Liberals have of just dodging anything unpleasant. The Mike Duffy scandal lasted forever -- and it was a true 'nothingburger'. It was a drop in the bucket compared to what governments of all stripes waste, daily -- and the scandal was that someone felt obligated to give it back??????

All of this is why people tune out of politics. You give up half your paycheque to pay for it all, and for what? For a budget that makes promises it won't keep, or if it does keep them, will bankrupt us and where a good half of us are too young, too old or too something to benefit from any of the largess if it ever found its way to where it's supposed to go anyway.

Maybe this is what they all want. Exasperate us to the point where we just turn off the tv, close twitter, and walk away.

canadianna

It matters where it happens

For all those conservatives bleating on Twitter, how the mainstream media, politicians etc. have made a big deal over the New Zealand mosque terror attacks, and have not shown similar emotion for Christians slaughtered in Nigeria -- you already know the reason.

Whenever anything horrible happens in a western democracy, we watch, we weep, we grieve alongside -- because we see ourselves there. It doesn't matter the race or religion of the victims or the perpetrators, we are the same society. Things like that shouldn't happen here, because we deem our world, the 1st world, to be civilized. When terror strikes in our 'peaceful' nations, it strikes us in a way that brings the devastation home, even if it happened across the world.

It isn't that deaths in Nigeria don't matter, or that Christians matter less that Muslims, and no sane, rational person would ever suggest such. But terrorism, brutality and all manner of violent racism, religious persecution and inhuman treatment of 'the other' is still the norm in countries and regions where society still has a mindset of the ancients. We expect no better. There is no shock in its occurrence. These people share our world, but the expectation of civilization does not exist from us, for them.

If you live in and function as part of a modern society, we expect that regardless of who you are, your race, your religion, your country of origin -- you will not take up arms against your fellow citizens based on their race or religion -- it's that simple.

For people to try to make this a big deal of who gets the most outrage for their victimhood -- shut up. You know better.

canadianna

Lovely sentiment, but very conflicting

Jody Wilson-Raybould's letter to Liberals and other citizens is uplifting, inspirational and very conflicting.

Much as I agree with her sentiments, I find they don't mesh well with staying in the party. It seems incongruent to me that she could find they behaved so egregiously that she quit cabinet, but that she feels she can somehow work within the party for change.

Trust has eroded -- that's a two way street. Just as she (apparently) lost trust in those within the highest level of her party, surely she must see that they have lost trust in her as well, and therefore, she will have no voice.

Had there been a stampede out the door following the resignation of Jane Philpott, I might say there was something to the concept of change from within. Instead we've had support for the Prime Minister from the rest of cabinet, and from the rest of caucus, yawns and shrugs and support for the status quo.

We've just had a Liberal dominated committee refuse to hear the rest of the details of her story -- I'm sorry. I just don't get it.

While I believe the allegations of the former AG, in my opinion, she discredits herself by continuing to pledge support for the brand.

The brand is the problem. How does she not get this?

You might like the Carbon Tax, and support action on climate change -- you might agree with every plank in their platform, but if the leadership of the Liberal Party still doesn't get why its behaviour in the SNC-Lavalin affair is wrong, how can she reconcile working along side these same people?

This is not a government problem. This is not a Canadian problem. This is a Liberal problem.

How can something your company's leadership has done, be so bad that you would quit your position, but then with no changes, no admissions of culpability, no acts or words of contrition -- you still feel that it was a worthy enough company that you want to maintain your relationship, and to represent the brand.

Doesn't compute.

canadianna

This is where it gets tricky

So the Liberals did what Liberals do, and have adjourned the Justice Committee until next week, budget day -- so they can ponder 'next steps' and bury their vote behind budget coverage.

This is where Sheer needs to remain calm and not get all accusy and irrational.

He should not be making demands or acting indignant.... he should simply say that the Liberals are behaving in a manner to which we've become accustomed over time. This new ilk brings with it the old ways. Anyway, we trust that one way or another, the truth will out as it always does.

Poise, calm and confidence.

That's what this requires from the opposition. Too often the Conservatives come off hysterical at every turn.

This obfuscating, lying, manipulating, on the part of the Liberals is business as usual. It happens all the time. Any over-the-top rhetoric just adds to the illusion that this is an anomaly for them. It isn't. This is how they work. It's how they've always worked.

New generation, that's all.

canadianna

 

PMJT is no ordinary guy

Although we keep getting news on the repercussions of the SNC-Lavalin affair, I honestly don't see it affecting the PM's chance at re-election.

He seems to have weathered the storm, mostly by just doing what he always does, which is saying a bunch of nothing.

There have been suggestions that without Gerald Butts in the PMO, that going forward with be hard for PMJT, but Butts didn't die. He resigned. As this scandal slowly recedes from the public interest, you don't think Gerry will be back there, advising his friend, even if in a non-official role? Who's to say he won't be re-hired. He did nothing wrong. He's spoken 'his truth'. A couple of weeks from now, they could slide him back in and who's going to challenge it?

The biggest concern to me as we move toward October's election, is that much as Trudeau doesn't deserve to be PM, I don't think Sheer does either. Lisa Riatt? Her I could get behind. Sheer does have a good team, but as the face of the party, he's just really bland and uninspiring. His attacks on Trudeau seem desperate rather than poised and reasoned -- even if they are well deserved.

The cult of personality got Trudeau elected. It wasn't his progressive agenda. People don't really believe the promises politicians make anyway. It was that 'star quality', and while it's lost a lot of its luster, I think people already knew he was stupid and didn't care. The question is, will it matter to them how poorly he's treated the people surrounding him, because that, more than the scandals and missteps, is where he's fallen the most. He had put himself on such a pedestal, and he's toppled off soundly.

Just seeing the bits and pieces of his public personality -- the time he elbowed the NDP MP in the chest in the House of Commons because he felt compelled to drag a Conservative MP to his place, his name-calling, his reported temper in private ... there are a lot of personal behaviours that smack of the spoiled little rich boy not ever wanting to be challenged, and not being able to deal with not having his own way. Some of them bubble to the surface and he seems unable to control them.

I think the only way the Conservatives win the next election is to exploit that, but wild demands of resignation, exaggerated outrage and petitions won't do that. Trudeau's temper comes not when he's full out besieged or insulted or attacked -- but rather when he's resentful, spurned or impeded in any way.

Here's hoping the opposition has learned a little bit about his psychology, rather than applying tactics that might cause regular people to feel shame or blame or contrition.

canadianna

Just another one who got it wrong

Liberal MP Celina Caesar-Chavannes says when she met with PMJT to discuss leaving politics, she was "met with hostility", but we all know she got it wrong:

Matt Pascuzzo, a spokesman for the Prime Minister’s Office, said, “The Prime Minister has deep respect for Celina Caesar-Chavannes. There’s no question the conversations in February were emotional, but there was absolutely no hostility. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, he is committed to fostering an environment where ministers, caucus, and staff feel comfortable approaching him when they have concerns or disagreements – that happened here.”

So there it is again -- another silly woman who just experienced things differently.

You know, I sort of villified Julia Lalonde, the consultant who gave them that mantra about people "experiencing things differently". It isn't that it can't be true. It is true often -- but what bothered me is that the Trudeau government has used it as a shield, rather than gaining insight from it.

Having read a little more about Ms Lalonde, I realize that when she told that to the fellas, her expectation was that they would understand that men and women DO experience things differently -- that yelling, or even elevated voices, insistance on one's own way, even if done politely, persistent communication about something that is uncomfortable -- those things might be typical male behaviour, and to the man, be innocuous, business-as-usual handling of affairs -- but to the woman, (or evern to other men) it might feel like harassment or intimidation.

I used to think Ms Lalonde was handing them an excuse -- now I realize -- she was saying: check your behaviour, guys! She was telling them -- in all of your interactions, DON'T DO THOSE THINGS. I don't think she meant to say it was okay for them to behave in a manner that might to some be uncomfortable, and the women simply took it wrong -- I think she meant for the men she was teaching to grasp that they needed to  learn to moderate their behaviour, not because women are fragile, but because we come from a different perspective - one where men in particular often try to force, bully, pressure, intimidate.

She was saying -- be careful -- you don't want your words and actions to be misinterpreted.

Instead, the men of the Trudeau governement have grabbed onto those words "we experienced things differently" and used them to skewer the women in their lives -- they've simply decided what they've said and done was A-OK, the woman just had the wrong point of view -- no need to self examine, no need to ever better oneself, one's reactions, one's conversation or persuation skills, when a man can simply say the other person (obviously) feels differently about the interaction, and BOOM, done.

The scary part is, that Trudeau used this line in a physical accusation -- what sort of message does that send?

I've no doubt Ms Caesar-Chavannes experienced those encounters differently from Mr. Trudeau. He still hasn't learned that it's incumbent on him to behave in such a manner that it CANNOT be misinterpreted.

But he has so little self-awareness, he really thinks it's everyone else's fault.

canadianna

This government is vile

You have to read Brad Wall's column in the National Post.

This government is vile.

I remember non-conservatives weeping and wailing about how Stephen Harper was divisive, going to change our country and destroy our institutions, but Stephen Harper's Canada felt little different from Paul Martin's or Jean Chretien's or Brian Mulroney's (which often made me angry). In terms of our basic understanding of who we were and how things worked, the change seemed uneventful. It wasn't perfect. I had my disappointments in the Conservative reign, but Canada was Canada.

Much as I didn't like the Liberals of back then-- I thought they were smug and arrogant and entitled -- they were also sane rational people with a realistic view of the world and our country. I might have disagreed with their politics and policies -- often found fault with them in fact, but I didn't feel their way of governing was going to careen the country out of control to a point where the damage might be irreparable.

Not so this government --- This government has all of the arrogance and entitlement, with none of the smarts. It is so divisive, so uncontrolled, unmeasured, so sure of itself without actually knowing anything at all. It's basing our future on unproven ideologies and the whims of the day.

They support one region over another, time and time again. With its rigid ideological stances, there is no room for concessions, conciliation, cooperation -- it's all -- my way or the highway and that's in all areas - environment, justice -- you name it. They all hinge on that wildly extremist view of climate change, race and gender.

Sad thing is ... they told us all this before they were voted in.

canadianna

 

Erosion of Trust

So that's the new talking point.

Yesterday, Gerry Butts parroted PMJT's oft said - two people can experience the same event differently, which means: she's a liar, but I'm not saying that.

This tactic is useful when the 'truth' is up for debate - an unrecorded conversation for example. It gives you leave to imply someone is a liar. And the cool thing about implying things, rather than saying things, is that you get to act hurt when the other person gives detailed accusations -- you can be shocked, feel betrayed, seem confused -- because you were experiencing all of the interactions differently, and you aren't actually saying anything mean about them, but look how they are attacking you! There are no facts. Family squabble that this silly bitch brought out into the light. Just don't get it. Poor us.

But isn't it funny that Trudeau had to wait until after he knew what Butts said before he could comment. And isn't it remarkable how identical their stories are?

This morning PMJT parroted Butts' line from yesterday about 'eroding trust'. Both men took responsibility for not having realized earlier that 'trust was eroded' but both implied that it only happened when/because Jody Wilson-Raybould was bumped from AG. Which means: We did nothing wrong. She just took it wrong. But only after we had to do what we had to do for purely noble reasons and remove her from the role of AG.

So she's a vindictive liar, but they never said that.

And they'll take all the blame.

Heroes both.

You wonder why there aren't more women in politics?

canadianna

 

If they are good, then she is not

Gerry Butts refused to comment on incidents/conversations for which he was not present, and frankly, that was most of them. He suggested that none of the players, even those who worked directly for him, ever relayed information about those conversations to him. He maintained he was unaware of them, and completely unaware of the fact that the former AG had made, what she considered, a final decision.

What's interesting is how he managed to kick and stroke Jody Wilson Raybould in the same breath, talking about their long-time relationship including family visits, taking ownership of the breakdown in trust, displaying sadness at the loss of her friendship and her (my words) betrayal.

While he would not comment as to specific conversations, he did say that those various players, Justin Trudeau, Bill Morneau, Ben Chin, Michael Wernick, Elder Marques, Mathieu Bouchard et al -- are all people with characters above reproach. He could see none of them behaving in the manners of which they were accused.

Which means only one thing. If they are all very good people, who would never do anything wrong -- Jody Wilson-Raybould is not a good person. She had to have been lying, maliciously impugning the reputations of several good people in order to -- well -- to get back at the Prime Minster for having removed her as AG. After all, none of this came out until after the cabinet shuffle, and if there had been anything wrong, why wouldn't she have come forward sooner.

As it stands, Butts does not believe that 20 contacts over four months is a lot, let alone 'sustained pressure' despite being over the same issue, when the answer has already been provided in detail, and when everyone involved had been told, enough.

Butts also wonders why Jody Wilson-Raybould would have solicited a meeting with him if she didn't want to talk about SNC (a meeting he says texts prove was asked for by her, but which she suggested was a mutually sought out meeting) why would she reach out to him if she wasn't interested in talking about SNC?

I believe in her testimony she said why -- she wanted him to call off the dogs. She didn't want to discuss SNC the issue -- she wanted to discuss the way the PMO, Finance and PCO were trying to handle her and that she wanted them to back off.

From her meeting notes:

On December 5/2018, I met with Gerry Butts. We had both sought out the meeting.

I wanted to speak about a number of things – including bringing up SNC and the barrage of people hounding me and my staff.

Towards the end of the meeting I raised how I needed everyone to stop talking to me about SNC as I had made up my mind and the engagements were inappropriate.

Gerry then took over the conversation and said how we need a solution on the SNC stuff – he said I needed to find a solution. I said no and referenced the PI and JR.

I said further that I gave the Clerk the only appropriate solution that could have happened and that was the letter idea but that was not taken up…

Gerry talked to me about how the statute was set up by Harper that that he does not like the law…(Director of Public Prosecutions Act) – I said something like that is the law we have…

Why didn't she tell anyone? Why did she never bring this up until the cabinet shuffle. Why didn't she go public. She says she did tell someone. Gerry Butts.

In his testimony, Gerry Butts said, if only she'd come to  him, he would have made things right -- so that means she did NOT come to him, because he did not recall that conversation that way, and he did not set things right.

But also he knows none of those people could have done the things she said, because they're good people who have served their country honourably... so to boil it all down all of this is just some bitchy scheme by a scorned woman to take down some powerful men because they took away her dream job.

None of this is He said/She said. It is either one way or the other. Either she told him about the pressure, or she didn't. No one 'misremembers' or 'misinterprets' to that degree.

But he didn't call her a liar. What a swell guy.

canadianna

No need to say the word

So, to sum it up: her won't call her a big fat liar, but everything she said was wrong, and she didn't bother to make any of it up until she lost her prized appointment as AG.

She was also arrogant, because she refused to take advice from eminent jurists on a matter of 'public policy' regarding a new law, because she felt she'd done her due diligence, which, according to Mr. Butts, who told us many times he's not a lawyer -- either she didn't have time to make an informed decision, or the decision could be made (according to him) at any time up until the verdict (which doesn't make sense to me, but... I too am not a lawyer).

She was also selfish, because she wouldn't take the role of Minister of Indigenous Services after being bumped from AG. (Gerald acknowledges that she's spent her life fighting the Indian Act, the last thing she'd ever want to do is be the minister in charge of it -- something that 'didn't occur to him' before her refusal of the post.) They just needed the best person for the job, for such an important portfolio -- so when she refused, they accommodated, gave her Veterans Affairs, and they put in the incomparable Seamus O'Regan to that vital position.

It's so good of him not to cast aspersions.

As we all know because the Liberals have all summoned the exact same line many, many, many times, just as Gerald did today -- two people can experience the same event differently. I wouldn't go anywhere with any of them without a tape recorder.

For someone who was not going to 'call names' he did everything but. If he is telling the truth, if he is credible at all -- she isn't. Which means she is a liar. Which means she concocted this story after the fact, or decided that what was just business as usual for the Liberals was actually political interference after they turfed her from her role as AG... but at least he didn't call names.

No doubt when Trudeau sachets back into the PMO in October, Gerry will be high in his team, and next time, they'll do a better job of picking the right women and of keeping them in their place.

I've never heard such double-talk so eloquently spoken. He's a master. You gotta give the man that.

But here's a conspiracy theory -- my previous post proves that Wilson-Raybould was not free to speak about anything that happened AFTER her removal from AG.

So --- you demote a Minister who isn't playing ball, but you don't want it to look like that, so what do you do? You give them a token role in a ministry you've played up but failed at. Given her race, everyone would think you were doing the right thing for Indigenous people, but when she refuses it based on principle - as you might have guessed she would given her history -- now you have evidence of sour grapes, not a team player, and, you also have the ability to gag her on the terms of the role until after your side has had the chance to announce that shocking revelation to the country.

PMJT isn't that smart, but listening to Gerald today, he is.

He wonders why she didn't come forward in September, October, November, December -- I'll tell you why -- if she'd blown the whistle any of the times when she felt pressured, it would have been -- look you still have your job... and now that she doesn't, it's getting called sour grapes.

What a smarmy, calculating, manipulate bunch of liars.

And sadly, I'm pretty sure a lot of people will just lap it right up.

But Seamus O'Regan? When you wanted the best person for the job? Apparently that bit was bullshit for sure.

canadianna

 

The Waiver

Gerard Butt's was able to comment on Jody Wilson-Raybould's reaction to the cabinet shuffle, because his waiver gave him leave to.

When it was suggested by the NDP member that Wilson-Raybould had been prevented from commenting because her waiver did not extend to things after her term as AG, Butts said No, she has the same waiver terms as I do, making her eligible to speak to anything up until January 14

Here is her waiver:

Date: 2019-02-25

---

Her Excellency the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, for the purposes of the hearings before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and the examination by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner:

 

(a) authorizes the Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould, the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her relating to the exercise of her authority under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, to disclose to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner any confidences of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada contained in any information or communications that were directly discussed with her respecting the exercise of that authority while she held that office; and

 

(b) for the purposes of disclosure to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner by the former Attorney General, and any persons who directly participated in discussions with her, waives, to the extent they apply, solicitor-client privilege and any other relevant duty of confidentiality to the Government of Canada in regards to any information or communications in relation to the exercise of the authority of the Attorney General under the Director of Public Prosecutions Act that were directly discussed with the former Attorney General respecting the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin while she held that office.

 So, he's wrong.

canadianna

Still deflecting

Apparently Justin Trudeau plans to "make a display of contrition over how officials in his office conducted themselves" and to "show some ownership over the actions of his staff and officials" in their handling of the SNC-Lavalin file, and their attempted handling of former AG, Jody Wilson-Raybould.

Nice.

Except -- have we forgotten that one of the very first meetings where partisan-motivated political interference took place, was one in which Justin Trudeau was not only there, but he actually brought up his own position as an "MP from Quebec" - where a provincial election was to be held within weeks.

So here we are again, Justin Trudeau is unable to accept blame, responsibility or even ADMIT his own wrong-doing, but somehow, gonna do the right thing and blast those other guys who were bad.

This government is a joke.  This Prime Minister is a joke.

He's an eight year old, caught in the act and still pointing fingers elsewhere, saying "Not me! him!"

I don't think any of the players mentioned by Wilson-Raybould have clean hands. This was not off the PM's radar. It was not something rogue underlings had taken on without his knowledge or approval. It doesn't matter whether it was Butt's idea or Katie Telford's, or if one of them orchestrated the pressure on Wilson-Raybould. Trudeau was an active player... not a bystander. He's as culpable as anyone on this.

When Wilson-Raybould suggested to Butts that she'd been demoted because of  "a decision that (she) wouldn't take" Butts asked if she was questioning the integrity of the prime minster.

We ALL should be.

canadianna

Not sure that's what she said . . .

CBC's headline is a little misleading, I think:

Jody Wilson-Raybould, the MP at the centre of the SNC-Lavalin affair, says she'll be running under the Liberal banner in October's general election.

"I have been confirmed as the LPC [Liberal Party of Canada] candidate for Vancouver Granville for the federal election 2019," Wilson-Raybould told CBC News in an email.

She would not comment further, and said she isn't conducting interviews right now. 

Previously, she had said her intention was to remain in caucus and continue to serve as the representative for Vancouver Granville. She told the Vancouver Sun earlier that she had been confirmed as the Liberal candidate in that riding last year.

 It looks to me rather than confirming that she'll be running as a Liberal in October's election, she's been ask about her status, and she says -- I have been confirmed as the LPC candidate for Vancouver Granville. That's hardly the same as saying "...she'll be running".

A paragraph down says:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has said he is still considering whether Wilson-Raybould can remain in the Liberal caucus after her explosive testimony Wednesday in front of the Commons justice committee, where she confirmed she had faced continuous pressure over four months from high-ranking government officials to interfere in the legal proceedings against Montreal engineering giant SNC-Lavalin. 

So, Wilson-Raybould has heard something that has not been announced by the PMO? I doubt it.

This is the CBC misinterpreting a statement, likely issued as a response to the question -- will you be running for the Liberals in October - the reply that she was confirmed as the candidate in no way assumes that she's running -- it simply outlines her current status.

Not sure if the CBC is trying to mislead, or if they've just misunderstood the subtlety of her message.

It's hard for me to believe that after everything that has happened, Wilson-Raybould could, at this point simply say, bygones be bygones, and yeah - no questions, no changes, no concerns -- I'm part of this team.

She has been confirmed. She has not confirmed she is running.

canadianna

Silly woman

Just yesterday I reminded y'all of the quote by Dear Leader that said different people experience things differently ... blah, blah, blah. Well, Irwin Cotler must have that same PR coach Justin used last year:

Cotler said it's possible officials with the Prime Minister's Office, Privy Council Office and minister of finance didn't intend to exert inappropriate direction on Wilson-Raybould, but over time if felt like concentrated and sustained pressure.

During her testimony, Wilson-Raybould referred to it as "a barrage of people hounding me and my staff."

"I know this may sound somewhat, perhaps, speaking paradoxically when I say that both sides may be telling the truth, but that was my feeling that she was really telling it as she saw it, as she experienced it," said Cotler.

 Really?

Honest, we only came to her dozens of times, reminded her of the stakes, suggested routes and avenues she should take, offered her a legal-eagle whose opinion would buffer her from any fallout once she did the wrong thing by INTERFERING. We talked about elections, the future -- but we didn't mean it to sway her, and definitely not to intimidate her -- it was all just FYI time, and time and time, and time again -- even after she'd made her position clear time, and time and time again. It's all in her head -- we don't know where her mind was. Silly woman. We would never have demoted her over this --- ooops.

And then we have Jat Sidhu (who has now apologized) who said:

Sidhu told The Abbotsford News the discussions about the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin were "normal" and that Wilson-Raybould was not a "team player."

"The way she's acting, I think she couldn't handle the stress. I think there's somebody else behind —maybe her father — pulling the strings," he said.

Seems to me Team Trudeau doesn't think much of its women.

Surprising!

canadianna

Pattern of behaviour unbecoming a Prime Minister

Whether it's physical interference (groping) or political interference (pressuring the AG to act in a manner that goes against both her conscience and her job description) women in Justin Trudeau's life always seem to get it wrong.

Harken back to last summer when our beloved PM was answering questions about allegations that he'd man-handled a young reporter many years ago... here's what he said:

'I am confident that I did not act inappropriately,' Trudeau says of groping allegation

"Part of this awakening we're having as a society, a long awaited realization, is that it's not just one side of the story that matters," he said. "That the same interactions can be experienced very differently from one person to the next.

(…)

Trudeau said he can only be responsible for his side of the interaction.

"A man experiences an interaction as benign or not inappropriate and a woman, particularly in a professional context, can experience it differently," he said. "And we have to expect that and reflect on that."

Fast-forward to yesterday after the testimony of fellow Liberal, former AG, Jody Wilson-Raybould regarding what she felt was sustained pressure by the PM, the PMO and various ministers of the Crown, to intervene in the handling of the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin: 

Trudeau, reacting to Wilson-Raybould’s allegations,maintained that he and his staff did not act inappropriately.

“I strongly maintain, as I have from the beginning, that I and my staff always acted appropriately and professionally. I therefore completely disagree with the former attorney general’s characterization of events,” Trudeau told reporters in Montreal on Wednesday evening, after Wilson-Raybould spent hours testifying in Ottawa.

The Prime Minister has proved himself incapable of good judgment on many levels. This is just another example of him expecting to get what he wants from a woman and reacting badly when it doesn't work out his way.

Jody Wilson-Raybould is a brave person. She has spoken "her truth" as Minister Freeland put it. Hopefully the country will realize that *the* truth is sometimes not a matter of perception. It's just the truth.

canadianna