Wilson-Raybould, Trudeau, and SNC-Lavalin

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

BTW - I had stopped posting here for a bit becuase of the thread claiming that China is being attacked unfairly by posters here. the last straw was Kopotkin's bullying implication that any who want to criticize China are imperialists. Since I do criticize China but also defend it at other times and very much admire the country and civilization.

 

The fact that people don't give a fuck does not mean it is right.

Nobody should be bullied into supporting ANY government or withdrawing criticism becuase others will brand them as imperialists if they do not toe the party line.

You were an asshole in that thread and I see you are still proud to be a dishonest bully misrepresenting people.

I actually do not care if nobody agrees with a principle that I believe is worth having. I do not vet my opinions based on popularity but rather on what I believe is right.

This plae should not seek to censor criticisms of any government for any reason. It should judge each one based on how supported it may be.

No person should be able to lob thinly veiled accusations against others here in order to censor opinions that they cannot challenge with fact.

It is too bad that bullies like you get away with the shit you do but nobody can do anything about that so you are free to be an asshole and others are free to complain even if nobody gives a fuck

Pogo wrote:

On October 30th 2018 Glen Abernethy and Wally Schumann survived non-confidence motions in the NWT legislature.

1) this is not the national government

2) the NWT do not have the same system as the federal government -- for one they do not have political parties --

3) The NWT has consensus government

4) Unlike the government of Canada the members do elect the a premier and a speaker by ballot along with seven MLAs to form cabinet.

This is not in any way an example that can be applied to the federal government a completely different system.

I really do not get your point by raising these irrelevant examples? Are you just doing this to be contrary or are you suggesting that they are in any way related to the federal government situation with Trudeau and his departed ministers?

Boring!

dp

bekayne wrote:

JWR wasn't under oath either. This isn't the U.S.

I suspect she wouldn't say no to being placed under oath, unlike the way the others refused to be.

She's not being accused of anything, unless you count the accusations from Liberal ministers that she's difficult to work work with. Which was very likely an attempt to try and explain why she was suddenly fired from the AG position.

According to Trudeaus generals everything would have been fine if she just shut up and did what she was told. They probably think the same for the rest of us Canadians too.

The accused refused to be placed under oath, that says alot.

Liberal MPs Block Effort To Immediately Invite Wilson-Raybould To Testify Further on SNC-L

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-liberal-mps-block-effor...

"Liberal MPs blocked an effort by the opposition on Wednesday to immediately invite Jody Wilson-Raybould back to a parliamentary committee to speak further about the government's effort to put pressure on her to shelve the criminal prosecution of SNC-Lavalin Group Inc, despite the former justice minister's willingness to testify again...Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre said the government must eliminate the 'gag order' that prevents Ms Wilson-Raybould from telling the whole truth..."

Okay guys, I give up, as per you guys only political parties and the GG have the right to decide who the PM is. As long as they agree the people and our representatives have no say (beyond the election). If they don't like the PM tough, they have no say in the matter. Our representatives are there purely as party place keepers.The Liberal caucus is legally not allowed to reject the leader. It's entirely up to the party and the GG. None of that is true but you can go on believing it. 

Pondering wrote:

The Liberal caucus is legally not allowed to reject the leader. It's entirely up to the party and the GG. None of that is true but you can go on believing it. 

I pray to the great spirit in the sky

that I don’t actually believe such a lie.

Oh my. Oh my.

Oh my. Oh my.

Pondering wrote:

Okay guys, I give up, as per you guys only political parties and the GG have the right to decide who the PM is. As long as they agree the people and our representatives have no say (beyond the election). If they don't like the PM tough, they have no say in the matter. Our representatives are there purely as party place keepers.The Liberal caucus is legally not allowed to reject the leader. It's entirely up to the party and the GG. None of that is true but you can go on believing it. 

Another poster who is arguing without substance but then when it is clearly lost uses this arrogant "I know I am right but I am just too good to have to prove it shit."

It is a fact that parties have the exclusive right to pick their leaders. The facts provided are on the federal House of Commons website.

This is the kind of bone-headed dive into logic free discourse that Pondering you ahve done before. This conversation is not something that you can have an alternative fact about -- it is not opinion but objective fact. Intstead of having a conversation about why this is a problem in our system and what the alternatives might be, we have this long thread of bullshit reality denying.

If any PM loses the support of the majority of  backbenchers (regardless of party) he is toast even if the GG adores him/her.  That would be expressed during a confidence vote. Backbenchers wouldn't call for a vote of non-confidence but when one occurred they could vote against the government and the government would fall along with the PM. 

The party could keep the leader on and have them run again but that would be pretty difficult for them to do without the support of the former caucus. While not legally required there would probably be a leadership review. 

The Liberal party replaced Dion without so much as a vote and they could do the same to Trudeau were he to lose the confidence of the house. 

Just because our representatives, the only people we actually elect, allow their votes to be whipped doesn't mean they must do so. 

While it is provincial not federal the Liberals won the most seats yet Clark did not remain premier because she did not have the confidence of the majority of representatives who were elected by the people. The representatives can reject every party leader put before them if they so choose. 

No Premier or Prime Minister can keep their position without the confidence of the house.  They may not be brought down before the next confidence vote but they wouldn't be able to pass any legislation. 

You can explain procedure until you are all blue in the face but it won't change the fact that the direct representatives of the people do not have to accept the leader of the party with the most seats as PM. 

While it will probably never happen, technically we could elect all independents in which case there would be no party with a majority of seats. 

If we elected a majority of independents they could refuse to accept the party with the most seats and decide on someone to put forward themselves. 

Pondering wrote:

If any PM loses the support of the majority of  backbenchers (regardless of party) he is toast even if the GG adores him/her.  That would be expressed during a confidence vote. Backbenchers wouldn't call for a vote of non-confidence but when one occurred they could vote against the government and the government would fall along with the PM. 

The party could keep the leader on and have them run again but that would be pretty difficult for them to do without the support of the former caucus. While not legally required there would probably be a leadership review. 

The Liberal party replaced Dion without so much as a vote and they could do the same to Trudeau were he to lose the confidence of the house. 

Just because our representatives, the only people we actually elect, allow their votes to be whipped doesn't mean they must do so. 

While it is provincial not federal the Liberals won the most seats yet Clark did not remain premier because she did not have the confidence of the majority of representatives who were elected by the people. The representatives can reject every party leader put before them if they so choose. 

No Premier or Prime Minister can keep their position without the confidence of the house.  They may not be brought down before the next confidence vote but they wouldn't be able to pass any legislation. 

You can explain procedure until you are all blue in the face but it won't change the fact that the direct representatives of the people do not have to accept the leader of the party with the most seats as PM. 

While it will probably never happen, technically we could elect all independents in which case there would be no party with a majority of seats. 

If we elected a majority of independents they could refuse to accept the party with the most seats and decide on someone to put forward themselves. 

Again you are engaging with a fantasy - one alien to our system and the reality we operate in.

"The party could keep the leader on and have them run again but that would be pretty difficult for them to do without the support of the former caucus. While not legally required there would probably be a leadership review. "

Practically speaking what you are saying is impossible. There would NEVER be a leadership review between a loss of confidence in a government and an election. Once the government lost confidence you are in an election.

Voting against your own party in a confidence motion is ending the person's career in a party - this is very different than quitting cabinet or quitting caucus temporarily. To get this number to do so is such an extreme measure that could only be imagined if a leader has done something so awful that the leader would have already resigned due to opposition within the party being so extreme as to get that resignation. In your fantasy you are imagining a case where MPs would commit career suicide before the party and the leader herself/himself having taken action. Remember - the case we are speaking of is a party actually in government.

All of this is becuase of your notion that you can separate confidence of a leader and confidence of the government - something that has been explained as non-existent in Canada. Now you are to trying pivot into saying that there would be a review before an election. No, not possible -- you are already in an election. As bone headed as a party leader can be before you have a revolt at this level the party would have already applied more pressure than MPs are able to apply.

You are trying to use pretzel logic hear to imagine a mechanism for a parliamentary confidence in a leader in this system where no such thing exists. Then to double down you are trying to come up with fantasy consitutional crisis level events to claim such an absurb scenario.

In Canada when a party leader is so has lost the confidence of the caucus, the government is still unlikely to be defeated by its own members.  Caucus members would apply pressure through the party and possibly even public calls for resignation long before that -- otherwise they would wait for the inevitable. Our political system is such that those who would want to take over in a later leadership vote cannot succeed by bringing down their own government. They might scream and call for a resignation, leave cabinet, even sit outside caucus, but if they want to be leader they won't vote against the party in the House in a confidence motion.

Parties go down with the ship in an election if the leader won't resign. Just like what happened in Ontario last year.

Then this:

"The Liberal party replaced Dion without so much as a vote and they could do the same to Trudeau were he to lose the confidence of the house. "

Absolute fantasy. Again if Trudeau lost confidence IN HIS GOVERNMENT there would be an imediate election. There is no mechanism for leadership confidence in Canada to be expressed in the house. Your example is ridiculous. Dion going was a simple leadership resignation following an election defeat. We do not live in your alternate reality where something else happened. There was no test or measure of caucus or House confidence in Dion's leadership. He brought  the party to a massive defeat and resigned. This is how it works. The leader resigns or the party is defeated. There is no other means.

Plus your example is even more absurd since we are talking about a leader of a party that was not in power. In your fantasy world was there a vote in the House of dissatisfaction in the leadership of the Liberals by other parties? Or by his caucus? Or any parliamentary expression - AT ALL?

Then back to never-never land again:

"While it is provincial not federal the Liberals won the most seats yet Clark did not remain premier because she did not have the confidence of the majority of representatives who were elected by the people. The representatives can reject every party leader put before them if they so choose. "

No - No - No. This is not an example of your fantasy at all. Clark lost government and chose to resign. THERE WAS NEVER A VOTE IN CAUCUS OR THE LEGISLATURE. You are making that up from thin air.

Then this:

"No Premier or Prime Minister can keep their position without the confidence of the house.  They may not be brought down before the next confidence vote but they wouldn't be able to pass any legislation. "

Again more fantasy. A vote on legislation has nothing to do with leadership or a vote on the government unless it is a budget and that is confidence in the government. An extremely unpopular leader can pass legislation if that legislation has the support of the House. Support for legislation is not the same as support (or lack of it) for a leader. Support  (or lack of it) for the government is also a seperate thing. It is extremely commmon in Canada that a leader would not have the support of caucus and still nothing would be done until a defeat of the party in the House or of an election. They either see the writing on the wall and resign or the party is defeated. Often they under-estimate their unpopularity and overstay resulting in a significant defeat for the party that might have been avoided with a new leader.

You say - but there is nothing stopping an unpopular leader from passing legislation that is supported by the House not legally or practically.

Then this:

"direct representatives of the people do not have to accept the leader of the party with the most seats as PM"

This is mixes up a few different issues: the House could have a combination of parties have more support than the party with the most seats. A government is held in place by the total of support it has the actual number of seats it has. If it can do this with more than one party it does not ahve to be the biggest one. But this has nothing to do with picking leaders. While the leadership may be a factor in whether opposition parties would side with the government it is not seperable from confidence in the party. No mechanism exists to select individulas to lead government apart from the votes produced for parties vying for power. I know you want your fanasy to be true and it does exist in the UK and other places. Not in Canada. No matter how often you claim that procedure does not enter into your fantasy, procedure and law rule the world the rest of us live in.

Your last fantasy of a House with all independents is an absurdity that would result in some kind of convention to create an arrangement with a leader. It has never happened before and would result in a constiututional crisis given procedure and convention. The GG woudl ahve nobody to call on. Independents woudl have to create some kind of replacement for a party by some kind of contract. Very likely the GG would not see it as stable and woudl call a second eleciton. While the dollar cratered and the world gazed at the crisis we woudl go through a period of instability. None of this makes your fatnasy of a party caucus in the House having the ability to change leaders as they do in the UK and none of this makes your fantasy of Parliament as a whole having some way of measuring confidence in a leader rather than a government. But sure you throw some absurd shit on the wall to see if it sticks. Well it doesn't.

Pondering I have a serious question -- you did not fall down the rabbit hole like this in the last couple years that I know of. Why are you returning to this?

Why can't you go into conversations knowing you might get some things right and some things wrong and not go to this kind of extreme measure to make people so tired of you and angry that they just give up in order for you not to admit that you made a mistake.

This issue is important because you derail a possibly interest question about why Canada does not have the mechanism that exists in most other examples of the British system. Instead of a practical discussion about the merits of the policy we have an extended discussion about the fantasy world you live in where you imagine this exists already.

cco wrote:

Put me down for a Wernick: Something he thinks exonerates Trudeau completely, but actually makes him look worse.

And old Wernick is at it again...

The country's top public servant received profanity-laced social media messages calling him "garbage," a "traitor," a "loser" and a "liar" after defending the Trudeau government's conduct in the SNC-Lavalin affair.

Michael Wernick, clerk of the Privy Council, tabled with the House of Commons justice committee Wednesday some of the messages he'd received since he first testified on the controversy two weeks ago.

"I believe that you will want to discuss this as the intimidation of a witness before your committee and a breach of the committee's privileges," Wernick said at the time.

******"[You're] garbage pal. If you don't want to be calked name like treason and traitor then don't indulge in it then, you (expletive) idiot goofs!" said one.

Kinda subliterate, and probably coming from people I would consider my ideological opposites. But still, as someone who can recall a heckler yelling to a major political figure in the '88 election "Hey Mulroney, I was with your wife!", I wouldn't say Wernick's e-mail trove represents any unprecedented onslaught of incivility in Canada.

Though I am curious about this "intimidating a witness" claim he makes. I'm tempted to laugh it off, but if(for example) Justin Bieber appears before a government committee to lament the ill-treatment of pop stars in the media, and I post something to his twitter account like "Ah, serves ya right, ya no-talent pinhead", and Justin is called before the same committee a week or so later, can I be charged with intimidating a witness?

https://tinyurl.com/yya76khk

Martin N. wrote:

Pondering, I said I understood what you meant, not that you were right, which you are not. In any case, the initial mansplainin has become a brawl mainly due to your intransigence.  When you are up to your ass in alligators, it's difficult to remember you are attempting to drain the swamp.

Sean gives an excellent point-by-point rebuttal below, but I thought I would add my voice so that the reaction can't be perceived as mansplaining.  

This summarizes briefly what Sean presented.  Non-confidence votes are for governments, not leaders.  Pondering, it might be a good idea to read the information in the link below about how party politics works in Canada. 

At any time, any member of the House of Commons can introduce a proposal known as a confidence motion that declares something to the effect of: “be it resolved this House no longer has confidence in the present Government of Canada.” If that motion passes, the House is said to have voted no confidence in the government, and the government must call an emergency parliamentary election, and win it, in order to remain in office.

http://www.thecanadaguide.com/government/parliament/

 

 

 

Tea and tarts as I recall.

voice of the damned wrote:

Kropotkin wrote:

I believe that your posts and others in the China thread were effectively a gang up to shut down WWWTT's point of view.

Are you talking about the thread called "The Demonization Of China"? Because WWWTT opened that thread in this manner...

There’s a double standard used against China. And even posters here at babble (not mentioning any names, you know who you are!) are comfortable with holding this double standard. 

Bordering on racism, if not full blown, this is getting uglier. And as China’s influential sphere grows, the imperialist old guard grows enraged. 

So he was essentially addressing himself to certain posters on the forum, and then saying in the next paragraph that they hold racist views. If that wasn't an invitation for those posters to go onto the thread and rebut his opinions, I don't know how else to read it.

I thought the thread was good response to the thread http://http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/don%E2%80%99t-let-china-take-world-hostage.  That thread was a series of demonization articles in our imperial press.

This thread used the name of a rabble article and yes WWWTT did talk about racism and the fact that there are borderline racist views that get expressed on this board. I happen to agree with his assessment and have called people out for it in the past.  I think much of what happens on this board comes from the ingrained systemic discrimination that permeates our Canadian culture that was conceived as a white supremacist nation.  The anti-Asian subtext is part of our cultural DNA and in my opinion like ingrained misogyny needs to be spoken to.

^^ I'm not arguing that WWWTT's posts are right or wrong. I'm saying that, when he opens a thread by addressing other posters as "You know who you are!", it's kinda hard to get all weepy about him being the victim of a "pile-on". He pretty clearly started the thread hoping to draw in adversaries for an argument.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/chris-selley-canadas-rickety-justice-system-may-yet-offer-a-twist-in-the-snc-lavalin-scandal

voice of the damned wrote:

Sheila Copps...

I think, had there been 9,000 Aboriginal jobs involved in her decision, she would have viewed it differently.

Kinda hard to prove that, beyond the folk assumption that a First Nations politician is going to make decisions based on loyalty to First Nations interests.

The rest of the interview is of the same tone and content.

http://tinyurl.com/y3wvvlo3

 

 

 

 

A complete denial of principles in JWR and a demonstration that Copps has misplaced any she might have had.

Last night I read one of North Report’s articles discussing the history of corruption and human rights attrocities that SNC Lavelin engaged in around the world. The article does not include paying workers in BC well below the minimum wage.

From North Report’s article...

Article

Quote:“A corruption prosecution of this gravity is unprecedented in Canada.

Moreover, had the Libyan regime not collapsed and the bribery discovered, would this company still be in the game, still arranging prostitute parties and funnelling money to the Gaddafis?

It's highly significant that SNC is no stranger to disciplinary action over its conduct. During the 2001-2011 period of the alleged Libyan bribery, the company has:

• been barred from bidding on Asian Development Bank projects for fabricating qualifications and documents (2004);
• settled corruption allegations with the African Development Bank over bribes in Mozambique (2008) and Uganda (2010);
• bribed Canadian officials with $22.5 million in relation to a McGill hospital contract (2009);
• been credibly found by the World Bank as participating in high-level corruption in Bangladesh in 2009-2010, and entered into a voluntary debarment from World Bank-financed projects;
• entered into a voluntary agreement to compensate seven Quebec municipalities for obtaining contracts through questionable means (1996-2011);
• made illegal federal election campaign donations (2004-2011), entering into a voluntary compliance agreement with the federal elections commissioner

In other words, from a prosecutor's standpoint, SNC's past history is a serious aggravating factor that militates against lenience.”

The article mentions that SNC Lavelin has  paid out millions of dollars each year to Saadi Gaadafi who was charged but acquitted of murdering a soccer coach. His body guards opened fire and killed up to 50 spectators at a soccer game for booing a ref.  Yet SNC Lavelin paid out millions annually to this guy after this happened.

My question is why are we not hearing about this? Prostitution parties! Human rights attrocities. All we hear about is possible jobs lost to Canadians.

I expect people like Sheila Copps and others to speak up about human rights attrocities. She isn’t. The media isn’t. Nobody is.

Somewhere in all this we have lost our humanity. Canadians can do something about this but we aren’t. We are only concerned with jobs and votes and campaign financing.

The Canadian government is tone deaf to sexual brutality against women and sex slavery and prostitution parties. The Canadian government is tone deaf to the mass murder of Libyan people. The Canadian government believes that Canadians who finance and bribe their way to more contracts knowing full well what heinous crimes are being committed through their direct bribing do not need to be held accountable for what they do.

This sends a very clear message to foreign countries what Canada really thinks of crimes against humanity and what punishment that Canadian involvement in these crimes really deserves.

Sheila Copps was racist with her remarks about JWR. She was also conspicuously silent on the human rights attrocities that SNC Lavelin arguably helped to play a role in.

Sheila Copp’s remark about JWR is even more galling.

Rick Salutin wrote in his Rabble article, Quit Fretting about Party Disunity, March 9, 2019, 

“When Indigenous peoples call for jobs -- or just potable water -- the responses are glacial; the urgent demand is for their patience. If this disparity is implied in Wilson-Raybould's cold fury, I find it pretty compelling, even in the face of jobs”

A woman recently died on a reserve because the black mold is out of control and destroying people’s health. Little children have to live with horrible rashes attributable to the black mold. Indigenous  people are living without safe housing and safe drinking water and this has been going on for years with no resolution in the forecast.

Sheila Copps made a distasteful comment and no one in the media is calling her out for it.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/politics/critics-question-snc-lavalin-jobs-defence-as-minister-can-t-give-evidence-1.4328946

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Here is an interesting take on the story from just across the border, it is from Feb 27. Hard to say how much of this conspiracy theory I accept but certainly the timeline and facts that we know say that it is plausible that BMO's conduct on behalf of  KM and SNC  are both involved in this DPA scandal.

Trudeau has cited Brison’s resignation as the reason that he removed Wilson-Raybould as leader of the Justice Ministry.  That logic continues to confuse many Canadian political observers who wonder why the Treasury Board President’s resignation would impact the tenure of the Justice Minister?

Among Ottawa-area political operatives, it is widely known that the Trudeau government’s sudden and unexpected acquisition of the Kinder Morgan pipeline — at a top dollar valuation and without the consent of more than one hundred indigenous communities — was rife with improprieties.

https://buffalochronicle.com/2019/02/27/trudeau-still-wont-let-wilson-ra...

https://twitter.com/Justin_Ling/status/1098773886395662341

"The Buffalo Chronicle" is not really a news site. It has no bylines. Its previous managing editor admitted that the site was basically a tabloid. The new owner ran for mayor in Buffalo as a Green candidate.

"The Buffalo Chronicle Media Group" is not a company registered in New York. The website is registered anonymously. Most of its supposed masthead haven't written for the site in years.

I reached Terrence Robinson, the supposed owner of the site, who has zero clue what it is. Turns out Matthew Ricchiazzi, the original owner, is still running it. I spoke to him. He's confident in the two reporters who wrote these stories — though he didn't fact check them himself

Ricchiazzi reached out to the two writers behind these stories, and will let me know if he can give me their names. Which is, obviously, weird.

SNCL Predations: Latin America

http://snclavalin.com/en/latin-america

The Ugly Canadians in Colombia and their silent partners back home who notice little, remember less and say nothing at all until/unless msm go first.