CanadaJimmy

It is pretty dire. Politically I align closest to being a liberal, but the corruption with SNC Lavalin is disgusting and doesn't sit well particularly when we've had to deal with political corruption and money laundering in Vancouver, to see similar behavior attempt to be excused by the PMOs office is shocking.

I don't want to vote conservative since all that will happen is cuts to public services and regulations lowered for their big corporation buddies. Scheer is an empty suit.

NDP are a trainwreck suckered into the identity politics bandwagon, where someones group identity becomes primary over their individual identity - where someone can't run as an NDP MP if they are not considered marginalized in some way. Their leader is weak and has no vision for Canada.

And Green are a wasted vote under the FPTP system anyway, that the Liberals were supposed to scrap.

Even without the scandal, the Liberals have fallen short of what they promised. They won over the millennial vote with their platform but only implemented the bare bones of it.

bats

I'm a bit lost in a this really. Which part is the scandal? Trying to preduure/persuade someone to take a different action? What were the veiled threats, the threat of what? Its what I thought happened in politics and business. So I must have missed something important. (Apart from Trudeau's moral high ground)
Why choose now to resign? She must have known that this is likely to lose the Liberals the election, unless she's thinking that a different leader might just do the trick. Not really the actions of a loyal Liberal unless there is a plan for a new leader to win. She's placing herself nicely for this.
I rather like that her counsel is called Thomas Cromwell.

Former Lancastrian

This from her resignation letter says it all for me

It grieves me to resign from a portfolio where I was at work to deliver an important mandate. I must abide by my core values, my ethical responsibilities, constitutional obligations. There can be a cost to acting on one’s principles, but there is a bigger cost to abandoning them.

So is she is basically saying I am a Liberal and believe in the mandate of the Liberal party however I do not believe in what this party has done and is doing regarding this incident.

She also stated

A fundamental doctrine of the rule of law is that the attorney general not be subjected to political pressure or interference regarding the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in criminal cases. Sadly, I have lost confidence in how the government has dealt with this matter and in how it has responded to the issues raised,"

Dogs are loyal MP's not as much. Being loyal is not always the right thing to espouse.

bats

But she didn't resign while she was AG and Justice Minister only after being ostensibly demoted and then not immediately. She believes in Liberal values but her actions will probably cause a very right wing government to take power. Are her principles worth that price? From what I've read she's a shrewd politician and this is a very measure step. There's a plan afoot, probably a very cunning plan. It better work as I really don't want Scheer as PM

caretaker

What he's quoting from is Jane Philpott's resignation letter; this branched off yesterday afternoon after she quit in sympathy with JWR and in disgust with JT.

BristolUK

It's funny, in the history of politics - especially the Canadian variety - nobody has ever been promised a promotion for voting a certain way or adopting a stance and nobody has ever been moved on when they've not done as someone else wished.

There's never been an action taken because of someone's bias nor a non action because something more important to individual or nation was considered.

If we take everything at face value, what's worse, not wanting too severe an action taken to protect jobs in the province where one is an MP and votes may be at risk (OMG, politician worried about lost votes shock) or the other corruption scandals seen?

Or is someone alleging corruption on this issue?

On a side note, I think some people might need to re-examine their anti CBC bias since the broadcaster is not attempting to play this down in any way.

Almost Canadian

She made a decision as AG and, after doing so, the PMO attempted to "persuade" her to change her mind. When she didn't, she was demoted. At this time we don't know if the two were linked but the optics don't look good. It could be argued that staying in the position was exactly what she should have done as, had she been allowed to do so, the prosecution would have continued.

She then chose to resign from her new position for reasons that are not really known.

Trudeau then attempted to smear her and is now suffering the consequences. On the credibility side, there is little contest at the moment.

If you look at her history, she is not a politician at all but, by all accounts, was/is a very good lawyer. Time will show what penalty the liberals pay for this but, if you are arguing that she should have backed the PMO because of party loyalty, rather than telling the truth, I am pleased that she opted not to do as you wanted her to.

You may recall that Trudeau has been accused of inappropriate behaviour with another woman. His response then, as now, was "she must have a different relocation of the events than mine." One could argue that a pattern is emerging.

Almost Canadian

The issue here is the allegation of political interference in a criminal prosecution. Everything else is deflection and smoke and mirrors unless, of course, you believe that the guilty should not be prosecuted simply because of the loss of a few jobs. Compare, if you dare, Trudeau's handling of this issue, with his insistence upon everyone following the rule of law in the oil and gas industry. Hypocrisy, one thinks!

BristolUK

Do you believe it's never happened before?
Do you believe prosecutions have not been advanced in situations where you may have expected them to do so? Or the reverse?
I'm certain that this is nothing new and I'm not excusing it on a whataboutery basis. It's just interesting that this is about the worst thing anyone's able to lay at Trudeau's door. And, of course, the timing.
And standard for politics. so why the outrage?

If only there were some real choice instead of 'them' and a bit less like them.

Almost Canadian

The PMO was accused of something and chose to attempt to fight it by smearing a member of their party. No one will ever know if it would have blown over had they not done so.

It has now blown up in their faces and we will have to wait and see what the outcome will be. If the civil servant that appears to have overstepped his duty remains in his post, I will be amazed. We will have to see how he responds to what JWR had to say about his conduct. One assumes he will be contrite and stand by his "there was nothing inappropriate" stance. He would be a fool to come out swinging at her.

In any event, Trudeau's "nice" label has gone, as has his "we will do things differently" and his government comes across as far more shady than Harper's, particularly as he hasn't even been in power for one full term yet.

BristolUK

I think a fair amount of his credibility went when he ditched the promise of PR after taking office. But I'm not sure his 'nice' label has gone.

Just checked an opinion poll and his rating dropped from 34% to 31% in the last two weeks. That's not much of a drop considering.

Almost Canadian

I meant his "nice, but incompetent" label. His fans will remain fans irrespective of what happens, just like those that are fans of Trump.

I suggest that, with those that follow politics, he never had much credibility. He has far exceeded the deficits he said he would incur, defaulted on PR, etc. The only thing he has done that he said he would is to legalise weed and make changes to UCCB etc. However, if one looks at the deficits he has incurred, one could sensibly argue is that all he has done is given money to children that those children will have to repay when they are adults.

As you are aware, I don't vote, so none of it makes much difference to me but I do not believe that anyone can reasonably argue that he is competent. I want to throw things at the TV when he attempts to speak on anything with gravitas, although I accept that, when meeting people, he comes across as a "good guy."

bats

Oh definitely hypocrisy but I'm not surprised by that in a politician.
What was the smear? That he has a different interpretation? She talked of veiled threats but what were they? A man with a baseball bat or the standard employment one of if you don't do your job the way the boss wants you won't get a payrise/corner office/or moved to another area.
Surely the time to make a noise was when it was happening?

There's a plot afoot for sure.

Oakvillian

I think the SNC Lavalin "scandal" is an awful lot of fuss about nothing. JWR has said that she thought, while some of the exhortations made to her by the PMO were inappropriate, they did not cross a line into illegality. Philpott's resignation on a matter of principle is far too uncommon in politics these days, so is newsworthy simply because a politician has decided to stand for her principles above her party. But it's clear those principles are over the way Wilson-Reybould has been treated, rather than because of the substantive issues in the SNC Lavalin affair.

As to the substance of the SNC Lavalin issue, it's plain as the nose on your face that SNC Lavalin paid baksheesh to do business in a country where that is the way business is conducted. The Government of Canada is being a bit holier-than-thou over the whole thing: every other Western government turns a blind eye to "bribery" to grease the wheels of business, even when they have ethical rules in place forbidding it. Does one suppose for a moment that the defence contracts in Saudi Arabia, for example, didn't see palms being crossed with silver to get the deal inked?

I also think AC is (for all his "I don't vote" commentary) pinning his political colours firmly to his sleeve - or at least allowing his opinions to be coloured by his home province, which after all is an establishment that thinks Jason Kenny is an acceptable person to lead a political party. Trudeau's accomplishments are much broader than he suggests, and although the budget defecits are still somewhat alarming, and I'm personally very disappointed that the promised voting reforms have sunk without trace, I think the present government is by and large an improvement over the autocratic tendencies of the previous one. Some early wins for this lot were reversing the more obvious iniquities of the Harper regime, such as bringing science back to prominence in the formation of government policy (including removing the muzzle from government scientists that had prevented their speaking about their publicly-funded work to the public), and amending the rules around EI waiting periods, parental leave allowances, and middle-income tax brackets.

All of this is likely to blow over before general election campaigning gets under way. Of course, Conservative and NDP parties will try to make a meal of it, but I have a suspicion that the Liberals have more material with which to beat Scheer and Singh over the head, than the NDP and Cons have to throw mud at Trudeau.

Mind you, I didn't think Trump would win the presidency in 2016, nor did I think Ford would win the Ontario premiership last year, so I'm quite likely to be wrong again...

Partially discharged

You perfectly summed up Justin. I always get the sense he is in way over his head and he wants to please everybody all of the time. He'll be there for the ribbon cutting but not the heavy lifting.