I’ve been clear and frank since his election that I’ve been largely supportive of Trudeau, so I’m biased to that extent, though I don’t by any means agree with everything he does. But I’m curious what you think is so remarkably “filtered” by statements like “Why not wait for all the facts to come out?” and “I’m not saying what he did was right (or wrong) as I don’t know what he did”?
I can assure you that if he can be shown to have pressured the AG to do something illegal, I won’t be defending him.
I would disagree and offer Jen Chretien simply on his ability to impose sufficient restraint to move Canada into surplus, survive a referendum and impose new criteria around any subsequent ones. Martin lacked time, and Harper was agreeable until he allowed the base to impose a removal of the census and impose restrictions on government scientific staff. Trudeau is fine except for his difficulty threading ClimateChange/Pipelines and this effort to influence his AG/Justice Minister.
I’m not necessarily a fan of Mr. Trudeau’s, but I think that this is the approach that ought to be taken. Right now, all we have are hints that Mr. Trudeau and/or his staff somehow acted inappropriately, but we don’t know for sure. In other words, we have one side of the story. Further investigation into all sides is necessary to know exactly what happened.
Note that I’m not necessarily a fan of Mr. Scheer’s; neither am I one of Mr. Singh’s fans. (I’m one of the Great Undecided.) Given that, I do think that Mr. Scheer was a little early in calling for Mr. Trudeau’s resignation. Nothing has been proven to show that Mr. Trudeau was the equivalent of a Mr. Big, whose minions would do his bidding without question, and who consequently should resign. Rather, we have allegations, many based on hearsay.
JWR gave us a lot to be looked into. We should look into it.
I think Harper was a decent prime minister, and underrated. Although some of his decisions seemed strange to me (census, treatment of science) these aren’t the biggest issues.
Scheer seems like he’s still deciding whether to be a nice guy or use more American tactics.
I have some familiarity with Trudeau and a few of his senior advisors. I know them to be smart, dedicated and generally ethical people. On one hand, the SNC Lavalin scandal seems like a storm in a teacup. The national media can’t be that surprised that bribery and black markets exist in many countries or that many Quebec (and Maritime) firms have a lot of influence. I don’t think Trudeau handled this well. And in the end being ethical and stubborn seems to have cost JLR her position, which is clearly wrong. But I’m not sure it justifies the first eight pages of the Globe either. I hope that the final result is that JLR’s old position gets divided into two different jobs and a way to offer more independence and more practical legislation.
While I agree that we need to have the full story, there’s a few things that jump out for me.
First, there’s the general principle that just because you’re the Prime Minister, that doesn’t give you the legal authority to tell your Cabinet ministers how to exercise their statutory duties. That principle was established by the Supreme Court sixty years ago in the landmark constitutional case of Roncarelli v Duplessis (yes, that Duplessis).
Second, that principle applies at its strongest in the area of prosecutions. One of the most important principles of our system of government is that decisions about criminal prosecutions are not based on political considerations. It’s the duty of the Attorney General to protect that principle. Ms Wilson-Raybould, a former Crown prosecutor, appears to have been well-aware of her duty in this regard. But doesn’t that carry a corresponding duty on her Cabinet colleagues to respect her duty to make independent decisions?
Third, the provision in the Criminal Code that authorizes these deferred prosecution agreement expressly states that the consent of the Attorney General is required to sign off on the agreement. That’s a statutory duty for the AG, not for anyone else.
Fourth, the Code also provides that when the charge relates to the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, the Crown Prosecutor is prohibited from taking into account any impact that the case may have on Canada’s national economy, i.e. jobs.
Fifth, the Code provision also expressly prohibits the Crown prosecutor from taking into account the identity of the accused organization - which suggests as soon as someone says “But it’s SNC-Lavalin we’re talking about!” they’re asking the decision-maker to take into account something they’re not supposed to consider.
All told, that’s a lot of red flags here. Sure, it’s good not to rush to judgment, but at some point as citizens we have to decide if what the PM and his staff did shows competence and respect for the rule of law. I guess we’ll all have to think about it when we go into the ballot booth this fall.
Yes, there’s corruption in foreign countries. And our elected representatives, in Parliament assembled, passed the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act, which makes it a criminal offence in Canada for Canadian companies to bribe officials in foreign countries. And Parliament also said that if a company commits that crime, they’re barred from federal contracts for ten year.
So is the federal Public Prosecutions Service supposed to ignore those strong directives from Parliament, and say to a Canadian company, “Och, we know you didn’t really mean it, and it’s all those foreigners who have corrupt business practices.How else are you supposed to compete? We’ll go easy on you.”
If the federal government doesn’t want companies to be punished for foreign bribes, then repeal the Act. That’s a clear policy choice. But don’t have the Act with force of law and then say “Whoops, we don’t really mean it!” That undermines respect for both law and government.
So Quebec and Maritime firms have lots of political influence and the government goes easy on them when they’re caught with their hands in the cookie jar, because the current government has lots of MPs from those areas. But if a western firm also gets caught with its hand in the cookie jar, and almost all of the MPs from the area are on the Opposition side, so the government doesn’t intervene to go easy on the western firm? What does that say about corruption, not in foreign countries, but right here in Canada?
I agree with you. And if I was from Alberta, I’d be doubly annoyed. As it is, I feel pipelines are necessary and critical infrastructure. By all means, consultations are needed. But when these have been reasonably done, sometimes one needs to build even if not all stakeholders are fully satisfied — there needs to be a satisficing solution.
With regard to JWR (and I apologize for my mistyping above), I think corporate governance in Canada is often weak. When the US passed the FCPA in 1978, which seems like a good law, Canada and many countries were slow to come on board. After the 2007 market crash there was finally an impetus to add teeth to laws in many countries, and Canada’s law passed under Harper in 2011 seems tough but reasonable.
SNC would certainly have been aware of this law. I’m not in a position to judge how fair a ten year exemption from bidding is — this seems to require a high level of corruption. There is a difference between local “payments” to facilitate things and executives getting rich at the expense of stakeholders. I have read this distinction exists in the American law, and Northern Piper would be in a better position than I to understand to what extent this is true.
JWR seems very principled and did her job, as she was required to do. The job also has a political component which makes it almost untenable and the AG and Justice Minister should be separate positions in my view. Clearly she faced blowback for doing what she was required to do. Since it made no difference to the outcome, the optics are bad (but might be the way business in Ottawa is often done, by any party, even if this is far from ideal). But it doesn’t really compare to Nixon’s crimes, and I believe the media is making too much of it. I think anti corruption laws should be stronger, but differentiate between degrees (and they probably do??).
Despite reading all the major papers, none of the many stories on this issue discuss the laws in detail. I often wish the news provided much more analysis and much less (often partisan) opinion.
Spending $2m on Qaddaffi’s relative was stupid and was presumably illegal. When Conrad Black says “companies don’t break the law, people do”, I don’t think I really agree with him. But he is right when he says the current executives did not do this. Anti corruption laws are needed, but need to make distinctions between levels of wrongdoing. Do they, in Canada? I have no idea. And the reporters should cover this aspect more.
Albertans are not just ‘double annoyed’ - they’re enraged. Alberta has given Quebec billions of dollars per year in equalization payments - payments only made possible by oil revenues. Then Quebec repays us by refusing to allow the oil they depend on from even going through their province to market. So Alberta loses over 100,000 jobs, and Trudeau does nothing about it. But when a Quebec company gets in trouble for bribing dictators, suddenly Trudeau is willing to break the law and risk his entire government to protect them and save 9,000 Quebec jobs.
There is not a lot of talk about separation right now - certainly not as much as when Trudeau’s dad was in power. But if I were Quebec, I’d be really worried about losing those transfer payments, because I think Albertans are very close to saying, “No pipelines? Well then, no money for you, Quebec.” And that sentiment is held by what is likely going to be our next Alberta government.
This year Alberta taxpayers will send $3 billion dollars to Quebec, while having a multi-billion dollar deficit of our own. That’s almost $2,000 per household. We give it to Quebec so they can pay for more expansive social programs in their province than we can afford. It’s a crazy situation.
Jesus, one does get tired of the whining and crying from Alberta. It would not be so bad, but the spouting of talking points that are inaccurate at best does tend to grate.
"oh, the terrible job losses. Alberta ended 2018 with 21,600 more jobs than in 2017. Most of these in the private sector. But lets not talk about that - better to whine about the past, rather than focus on what is happening NOW.
Alberta does not have a provincial sales tax like EVERY other province. Such a tax, same as every other province, would eliminate Alberta’s deficit. But let’s not talk about that, because Albertans don’t like taxes - they just want stuff, but don’t want to pay for it.
And the BS about Alberta “sending money to Quebec” is simplified propaganda at best. Alberta does not cut a cheque and send it to Quebec. This is what simpletons in the bars of Calgary believe. It is just a tad more complex. But makes a nice talking point for the drunk guys at the Ranchman’s on Macleod Trail. Quebec gets equalization payments from the FEDERAL government, while Alberta get’s none.
This year, Alberta taxpayers will NOT “send money to Quebec”. This is a ridiculous oversimplification.
The main whiners I hear about from Alberta are those who listen to the propaganda, and repeat it without even understanding the basics of what they are talking about.
Also whining from undereducated entitled lazy folks, who were laid off from their oil patch jobs where they were paid $30/hour to flip burgers at a camp, or $40/hour to change the toilet soaps in the urinals. Now that they have to find a real job, they are PISSED that they are not paid this much for low-level labour jobs. Idiots.
Wow. You go on about ‘inaccurate talking points’, then quote job gains in 2018, when we both know that the job losses came before that. In 2014, Alberta’s unemployment rate was 4.7%. By 2016 it had jumped to 8.1%, while the unemployment rate in Canada overall was just over 6%. That’s an almost doubling of the unemployment rate in two years. At the end of 2018 it was still 6.8%, and that’s AFTER a huge number of eastern oil patch workers went home and removed themselves from the statistics.
Are you kidding me? Shall we compare Alberta’s borrow-and-spend over the years to Quebec’s, or Ontario’s? Because borrowing money for things you want is the very definition of wanting things you can’t pay for. Alberta ran surpluses from 1994 until 2007, and had essentially no debt at all. Then we started electing big-spending governments, and ran ourself into a net debt by 2015. Then we doubled down and elected a left-wing government, which proceeded to spend us into oblivion and we now have a debt of about 40 billion dollars.
But shall we compare that to Ontario? Or Quebec? Ontario’s debt is now over 300 billion freaking dollars. Quebec is 273 billion in debt, despite getting billions of dollars per year from transfer payments. Per capita, that’s over $60,000, or about five times what Alberta’s debt is. Talk about living beyond your means!
No, it’s just that people like you want everyone to think that the other side is full of simpletons. Everyone is aware that there are transfers into and out of the provinces, and that the equalization system is administered by the federal government.
Attitudes like yours are why Albertans are getting sick and tired. You have to caricature us as a bunch of drunk hicks in CAT hats getting drunk in a bar. Reasonable people can argue over these things without constantly calling the other side names and stereotyping them. Try it sometime.
The net effect is the same, and you know it. Last year, six provinces got about $19 billion dollars in equalization payments from the federal government. Of that, about $11 billion went to Quebec. Unless you think this money grows on trees, it came from the ‘have’ provinces. Not in the form of a direct check, but in the form of higher federal taxes. So everyone gets taxed to pay for the 19 billion in equalization payments, but several ‘have’ provinces do not get those payments. This means there is a direct wealth transfer going on between ‘have’ and ‘have not’ provinces, and Quebec gets the bulk of it. Jesus, that’s the whole POINT to the program - to move money from wealthy provinces to poor provinces. It’s not about whether there was literally a check cut by the Alberta government to Quebec. Nice attempt at deflection mixed with condescension, though.
Then argue with THEM when they come along. In the meantime, you are trying to shuck and jive around the fact that BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario, Newfoundland and Labrador are collectively 19 billion poorer this year so that the other provinces can be 19 billion richer. Alberta’s share of that going to Quebec alone will be 3 billion dollars this year, as I said. In 2017, Quebec’s unemployment rate was 6%. Alberta’s was 7.8%
Your posts just drip with hatred. And you have no idea what you’re talking about. My family contains oil patch workers. Or did. The high paying jobs weren’t going to burger flippers, but to journeyman professionals working long hours in horrible conditions. To the extent that a burget flipper might get paid $20/hr in Grand Prairie, that’s because the cost of living in Grand Prairie during the oil boom was insane.
My brother was a mechanical insulator working on refineries and other outdoor facilities in the winter north of Grand Prairie, until the jobs went away. You try it. Oh, and he had to pay $1000/mo for 1/4 of a baseement suite he had to share with three other workers. He got paid a good salary, but very few people are willing to put up with the things he and his co-workers had to put up with. For instance, working ten days on, 12 hours per day, outdoors, then getting four days off. That’s a hard life.
That’s what you call a ‘low level labour job’. Again, why don’t you try it? Let’s see how long you can last. Or instead, you could try having a bit of sympathy for the kind of workers the left claims to care about.
The oversimplification is clearly yours. Look, it’s math; who exactly cuts the checks is the misdirection. If the government ships billions of dollars to six provinces and not the other four provinces, those other four provinces are out that money; that’s where those tax dollars comes from. (Of course, a percentage of that money is actually borrowed and thus taken from future Canadians, but let’s keep this conceptually manageable.) The effect of equalization payments is that the taxpayers of provinces like Alberta are out money, and the taxpayers of provinces like Quebec get the money. Hanging your hat on the fact that income tax is paid the Receiver General is silly; money is transferred from some provinces to other provinces. That’s the entire point of the program.
Whether that is a good or bad thing is a matter that we could have a pretty complex discussion on. It is, however, the case that the program takes money from some provinces and sends it to others.
