Trudeau calls it a “mistake,” the Criminal Code calls it Obstruction of Justice

As publisher and author of Mayorgate I try to avoid expressing my opinions during elections. Yet this is a time I believe no Canadian can or should stay silent or ambivalent. This is not an election based simply on party politics or party loyalty and for that reason I could not stay silent.

At the center of this election Canadians face a question they had never had to deal with. We have to decide whether a Prime Minister, the leader of this country who represents us all, should be permitted to run this country for another four years after facing allegations of obstructing justice. True these are allegations and the charge has not been proven, but then Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has ensured that no real investigation can be conducted by authorities. It is possible Justin Trudeau himself has not personally interfered with anyone on a face-to-face basis, but he has a whole team of willing individuals who would play the proverbial middle man. If there was any dignity in this situation the PM would step down and allow a full, legal and independent investigation, but that as we all know will never happen.

Obstruction of justice is a felony under section 139(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada. The Criminal Code states, “Everyone who willfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding: a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody, is guilty of c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”

This section continues with a more general interpretation of obstruction of justice:

2) “Every one who willfully attempts in any manner than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment not exceeding ten years.”

Can anyone reading these words from the Criminal Code of Canada describing what obstruction of justice is not comprehend the seriousness of the allegations made against the Prime Minister of Canada? Subsection 1 of section 139 of the Criminal Code uses the word “indemnify,” and Wikipedia describes this as, “The duty to indemnify is usually, but not always, coextensive with the contractual duty to hold harmless or save harmless.”

The storm began with the allegation of political interference with the justice system by the then Minister of Justice and Attorney General Judy Wilson-Raybould. The Minister of Justice had claimed that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) had attempted to interfere with an ongoing criminal investigation against a Quebec based construction company, SNC-Lavalin.

In February 2015 charges had been laid against SNC-Lavalin and two of its subsidiaries, SNC-Lavalin Construction Inc and SNC-Lavalin International Inc. Each of the firms was charged with one count of fraud and one count of corruption alleging that SNC-Lavalin paid out some $48 million Canadian dollars in bribes in Libya between 2001 and 2011. If SNC-Lavalin was found guilty and convicted they would be banned from bidding on federal government contracts for ten years. The result of such a ban would drive SNC-Lavalin into bankruptcy some have claimed, providing the opening on the whole issue of saving jobs.

SNC-Lavalin employs around 9000 people in Canada. The company's head office in Montreal has 700 of them, there are about 3400 in Quebec, 3000 in Ontario and about 1000 in British Columbia. It's important to note that not all of these employees work on federal contracts. According to Andrew Macklin, managing editor of ReNew Canada, a trade magazine focusing on public sector infrastructure, “While some of the employees at headquarters and other back-office functions might be lost, the bulk of the company's Canadian employees and subcontractors are working on infrastructure projects that still need to be done, no matter which company's working on them.” It was Gerald Butts, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's former Chief of Staff who made this claim of a job loss of 9000 in Canada during testimony to a House of Commons committee investigating the allegations of pressure from the PMO on the attorney general.

Industry experts don't seem to see that scenario as being accurate. Though another consideration raises more alarming questions relating to SNC-Lavalin and the art of the political contribution. The Commissioner of Elections investigation came to an abrupt end when 76 year-old Normand Morin a former vice-president with SNC-Lavalin pleaded guilty to two charges of contravening Canada's election financing rules. Another three charges were dropped by the public prosecution. SCN-Lavalin managed to illegally funnel more than $116,000 to federal political parties. The federal Liberal Party of Canada filled their hat with over $83,000 and other Liberal ridings another $13,500, that's a total of $96,000 with the Conservative Party picking up around $8,000. Not too hard to see where SNC-Lavalin's favours leaned, yet did Gerald Butts bring that up during his testimony to the House of Commons committee?

First Prime Minister Trudeau rid himself of his former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould, even had her expelled from the party. Then 76 year-old Normand Morin helped to shut down the investigation into the political contribution scam by pleading guilty and getting a $2,000 fine. Finally, Trudeau had to deal with Mario Dion the federal Ethics Commissioner. Mr. Dion found that Justin Trudeau had tried to influence the former attorney general in the SNC-Lavalin criminal case and “improperly further the interests of SNC-Lavalin.” There is that word from section 139(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada “indemnify.” Still, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau sees no reason why he should apologise for any of this.

We here in Canada listen to all the news about President Donald Trump. As Canadians we say that such blatant corruption and disrespect for the law cannot happen here. Yet what is the difference? Both Donald Trump and Justin Trudeau are the elected leaders of their respective countries. Both have committed acts that betray ethics and the dignity of the office they hold. Trudeau's actions appear to border on the criminal. Both have done everything possible to ensure that full proper investigations could not happen. The difference is that although senior Republicans back and cover-up for Trump, with the impeachment inquiry, more Republican voices are raised against Trump's actions.

Although Donald Trump is seeing more of his Republicans joining the call for impeachment here in Canada there has only been one Liberal who voiced their opinion in opposition to Justin Trudeau. The Honourable Jane Philpott resigned her position as President of the Treasury Board on March 4^th 2019. On April 2^nd 2019 both Jane Philpott and Judy-Wilson Raybould were expelled from the Liberal Caucus. Philpott's reason for resigning was that she believed her constituents wanted her to uphold the highest ethical standard and that she had no confidence in the prime minister's handling of the SNC-Lavalin affair. No other Liberal MP or member of the PMO has come forward to express their opinion other than like Chris Bittle stand behind the Prime Minister and nod their head. Staying in power is the only motivation that Liberals care for, they seem to care little for law or dignity.

These same individuals are asking Canadians to trust them, to vote for them. When Trudeau came to the Niagara area he faced questions, handed out speeches, but what stands out is the arrogance of this Prime Minister. During his visit, he was asked questions relating to his statement that he takes responsibility. The Prime Minister was asked for clarification in particular as the Ethics Commissioner had released his report. Trudeau said that “What we did over the past year wasn't good enough, but at the same time I can't apologise.” He went on that “taking responsibility” means making sure things of the past don't happen again and that “this mistake never happens again.” Obstruction of justice is simply a mistake to Justin Trudeau.

Because I live here in St. Catharines what I found most disturbing was to watch Chris Bittle, the Liberal Member of Parliament for St. Catharines standing behind Trudeau during this categorisation of obstruction of justice as “this mistake.” Chris Bittle is a lawyer, and as a lawyer would be very aware what section 139(1) of the Criminal Code describes. Bittle would also be very aware as a lawyer that the actions alleged against Prime Minster Trudeau should warrant a full investigation and resignation from office. Yet Chris Bittle has not made any comment on such facts, rather he stood behind his master nodding away. This is the same individual who is asking the people of St. Catharines to vote for him.

Whether it is Chris Bittle or any other Liberal MP the corruption stench smears them all. The Clerk of the Privy Council, Ian Shugart invoked cabinet confidence to block the RCMP from talking to people in their attempt to investigate the SNC-Lavalin situation. The Prime Minister claimed he had no role in that decision, yet the PM can waive the issue of cabinet confidence. Since Trudeau makes no apology and if in his words this was merely a mistake then why block access to the RCMP to speak freely to people? Trudeau also backed the blocking of witnesses from speaking to the Ethics Commissioner and the refusal of providing documents for Dion's investigation. So if Chris Bittle, Liberal MP for St. Catharines, agrees with his master's interpretation of SNC-Lavalin as a mistake then how does he explain away the obstruction to any investigation?

Amongst all the very alarming revelations relating to SNC-Lavalin, Justin Trudeau was confronted with photos and even video of his antics in blackface makeup. This was not a young Trudeau drunk or mindless in university, but rather as a teacher and an adult. Putting on blackface is an insult. His explanation was that he did not know how offensive and insensitive it was. At the age of 29 and a school teacher, coming from a family background like his he had no idea that his actions were insulting? A more relevant question is, did he care?

Regardless of how disgusting and unacceptable these actions were, they still do not compare to the ramifications of Trudeau's obstruction of justice. Sadly in a fashion the blackface incident had taken over the public discussion. I watched ordinary citizens being interviewed on the streets of Toronto regarding the blackface and several said or commented on the fact that it was from the past and one gentleman had said, “I have a past, you have past, we all do.”

That sentiment is exactly what Trudeau is using to play down the situation. He has claimed that he did not know better, that he did not realise that his actions were an insult. Yet had our PM faced an accusation by the MeToo bunch then the past would all of a sudden matter very much. If Trudeau was accused, mind you only accused without photos or video, of a butt slap, a hug or a supposedly unwanted kiss then his career would be over.

Canadians are being asked by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to disregard his arrogance, his hypocrisy and his disrespect for the law and put him back in office to lead this country. Every member of his Liberal government is out there with their signs asking for your vote, whilst they stand silent in support of the actions of their master, some even willing to take part in the cover-up. Yet each one of them is asking for your trust in this election.

Yes, non-elected individuals within the Liberal Party machine had been involved in the obstruction of justice with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but it is the elected who are at Canadian doorsteps asking for our vote of trust, our vote of confidence. Prime Minister Trudeau constantly pushes the fact he stood up for Canadian jobs, yet he has never said how many jobs may have been at risk. No Liberal MP has come forward to clarify how many jobs they saved by breaking the law. One has to remember that SNC-Lavalin is a Montreal based company and the PM's riding is Papineau.

In the latest debate, October 7^th 2019, Trudeau said that the Globe & Mail had published false allegations when they broke the scandal about the SNC-Lavalin affair. Standing in front of Canadian voters Justin Trudeau lied and accused journalists of presenting false allegations. How can we vote for Justin Trudeau, how can we vote for any of the Liberal candidates?

It is an election where Canadians have to vote for what are the true values of this country. No promises made by candidates matter, and we know most of them will not be honoured anyhow. No claims of accomplishments matter. The fact that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stood before the people of Canada and in his arrogance lied about the most alarming scandal in Canadian history and about his personal involvement is what we should vote on.

Chris Bittle, Liberal MP for St. Catharines has been given an opportunity to provide a comment, to answer questions relating to the SNC-Lavalin scandal. An email was sent to his parliamentary office and another to his campaign office. In addition, to the two emails, a message was posted with the questions on his Facebook fan page, which was seen on Saturday, October 12^th at 7:22. Regardless of how many attempts were made to obtain comment from Liberal MP Chris Bittle, no response has been provided. I guess 'ask me anything' notion in this candidate has conditions on what is asked. Perhaps the same applies to all Liberal candidates in this election.

Debbie Zimmerman's SLAPP suit fizzles!

Debbie Zimmerman is a well-known individual around the Niagara area and she has worked hard at trying to remain so. She is seen popping up at the Roundtable for CKTB, at the Niagara District Council of Women, or making speeches at A Better Niagara, a non-profit citizens group with executive director Ed Smith. From time to time you may see a letter to the editor published by Ms. Zimmerman. Her curriculum vitae can be considered fairly impressive: from 1989 to 2014 she represented Grimsby on Niagara Regional Council, and for two terms, 1997 through to 2003, as Regional Chair. Currently, she is the CEO of the Grape Growers of Ontario. In addition to these impressive achievements Debbie Zimmerman might be called a SLAPPer.

Today most have heard the term SLAPP suits or the Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It is a weapon used to shut down public discussion on matters of public interest by those usually who fear the truth. Often it is journalists and publishers who find themselves slammed with SLAPP suits to shut down and withdraw any article which raises uncomfortable questions or uncovers information which is preferred to remain in a closet.

The Ontario government passed the Protection of Public Participation Act in 2015. This was an attempt to help defendants of these lawsuits to seek to have those actions dismissed in a relatively expedient and less expensive manner. Sadly the operative word though is “relatively,” as the cost of any legal action is extremely high. Journalists working in the traditional hemisphere of publishing giants are protected by their publishers. They can now argue a new defense called “responsible communication” provided by the Supreme Court of Canada in two rulings in 2008 and 2009, WIC Radio Ltd. v Simpson and Grant v Torstar Corp.

Yet the threat of a lawsuit still is a difficult and a daunting issue to deal with, even with a publisher at one's back with deep pockets. Winning a lawsuit such as this only brings potential relief for legal costs and nothing else. The plaintiff who files the SLAPP suit faces no other consequences for their allegations. So the independent journalist, the blogger, faces a greater risk when slammed with a lawsuit. Whether mainstream journalists like it or not it is a fact that serious bloggers or independent journalists are providing real news and sometimes news that the mainstream scribes decide to censor. As such these individuals are at a greater risk to the threat of a SLAPP suit.

One independent journalist, Jessie Brown, who had established CANADALAND in 2013, a news site and podcast breaking stories that traditional or mainstream journalists would not, understands the looming threat of SLAPP suits. In an interview with Columbia Journalism Review, ('Jessie Brown punctures Canada's media bubble', by Simon Liem Jan/Feb 2015), Jessie Brown spoke of a decision he had to make whether to publish or not. Brown had been given information by an anonymous source alleging that CBC Radio host Jian Ghomeshi had been using his fame to lure and sexually assault women. Without hesitation Brown knew that if he published what he had uncovered he would be sued and “characterized as a crackpot blogger.” Rather than risk a crippling lawsuit Jessie Brown took all his information to Keven Donovan a leading investigative journalist with The Toronto Star. Eventually, an article by Brown and Donovan regarding Ghomeshi was published, and the rest is history. There was an ensuing trial and in 2016 Ghomeshi was acquitted of five of the charges and he signed a peace bond and aplogised to his accuser on the sixth. Jessie Brown knew what a SLAPP suit would do to him, his family and the story itself.

As publisher and journalist of my website, Mayorgate, I have on several occasions broken stories that local media refused to do. I have also often spoken loudly against the self-imposed censorship of news by the only real newspaper in this town, the St. Catharines Standard. Granted there is Niagara This Week, a paper which is delivered free to homes once a week, but the real news is expected to be provided by The Standard. Simply put the public has the absolute right to know what is happening in their community from a free and unbiased press, and that is a cornerstone to a true democracy. Mayorgate's goal is to provide news, information, and commentary; to stimulate discussion and questions without allegiance to anyone's policies or agenda.

Rumours had been floating of an alleged affair between the Mayor of St. Catharines at the time, Brian McMullan and Regional Councillor Debbie Zimmerman. As rumors are often unverifiable Mayorgate avoided paying attention, until in early 2014 a brown paper envelope was left at my work station whilst I was at lunch. The contents of this envelope were a shock to read. It was a copy of the divorce papers filed by Patricia Ruth McMullan, the now ex-wife of Mayor Brian McMullan.

What were rumours now found absolute and undeniable substance in legal fact as per filed court papers. The questions this raised were enormous. Both Brian McMullan as Mayor and Councillor Zimmerman sat on regional council, just the issue of conflict of interest was alarming. Reading those divorce papers and the allegations by Mrs. McMullan raised even more dangerously alarming questions.

I published an article titled 'Degradation of Public Office' on May 19^th 2014. In early June a Notice of Action in the form of a letter, dated June 2^nd, 2014 from Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, signed by Jordan Goldblatt on behalf of his client Debbie Zimmerman was received. This is where I should clarify what I meant as being a SLAPPer. It was never anything so gauche or kinky as slapping literally. Debbie Zimmerman now joined the myriad of individuals who find the need to remove the public's ability to know the truth and to discuss or question events. This was news, real news and without a doubt of public interest. This action was simply designed to threaten, harass and intimidate so that the article was removed and an apology provided to Debbie Zimmerman. Though it was no ordinary threat or accusation of defamation, it went further to threaten with a Criminal Code complaint under S. 298.

The Criminal Code of Canada under s. 298(1) – Defamatory Libel states, “A defamatory libel is a matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.” Further as s. 300 – Punishment of Libel know to be false, states, “Everyone who publishes a defamatory libel that he knows is false is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.”

Debbie Zimmerman threatened me with potential imprisonment for raising questions that any reasonable individual would have a right to ask. These questions were not based on rumours but on court-filed documents. This made me wonder if I was in Egypt or Saudi Arabia and Zimmerman was a princess. The threat in writing was followed by a Statement of Claim, to which I responded with a Statement of Defense, and an article on Mayorgate, not an apology.

Mayorgate's article 'Debbie Zimmerman Attacks Mayorgate' made the threat public. After the claim by Zimmerman and my defence were filed the following five years remained silent. There was no exchange of affidavits of documents, no discoveries or court dates for trial. Silence remained until the Ontario Superior Court of Justice sent me an Order Dismissing Action for Delay dated the 11^th of June 2019. 

Threat of potential imprisonment hung over me for five years. The Protection of Public Participation Act as useful as taking an aspirin for a broken leg. Zimmerman's fear of the truth or public questioning reached a crescendo only to fizzle out like a pricked balloon. To add, Zimmerman's five years of silence after the commencement of legal action was also The Standard's censorship of the news.

Much later the Standard did publish a letter to the editor written by Debbie Zimmerman which begins with “Abraham Lincoln once compared elections to a fire.” One might think this a slightly ambiguous phrase possibly, or maybe President Lincoln said more to put it into context? Maybe Zimmerman extracted her shortened version from these words by Abraham Lincoln; “Elections belong to the people. It's their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters.” No ambiguity here, none at all. Whatever quote she got it from she continues in her letter to say that women in politics “faced a heightened scrutiny our male counterparts did not,” and finished “women in politics became more effective leaders because the electorate was so closely scrutinizing who we were.”

Zimmerman's letter was published on October 17^th, 2018 and a nagging question remains, is it the scrutiny or the fire that she fears? That fear took another step towards the sublime by naming a local activist Fred Bracken as a co-defendant in her legal claim against me. It appeared that Mr. Bracken besides posting a comment on my article, as anyone may, had tweeted several times questioning the alleged affair, and linked my article to it. Now anyone in Canada for that matter, even China, has the legal right to read any article that I had written and if they wish attach it anywhere. As long as they don't claim they wrote it. Zimmerman decided that through his actions Mr. Bracken had republished my Mayorgate article.

Naming Mr. Bracken as a co-defendant to me, especially as I had no association with him whatsoever, had me wonder what kind of fixation did Zimmerman have on him? Really it was not an odd question as Maryanne Firth of The Standard gave it more credence with her article, 'Trespass notice ruled a charter violation' published November 26^th, 2015. Maryanne Firth writes, “In her affidavit Zimmerman alleged Bracken also made unfounded allegations regarding her personal life,” Firth further claims that court documents allege that Bracken was standing in the public gallery and “asked Zimmerman why she was suing him personally because of an article he had written about her.”

Bracken had not written any article about Zimmerman and was being sued as a co-defendant in my lawsuit as already explained. Who gave this information to Maryanne Firth of The Standard? Firth eludes to some “court documents” but what does she mean? Was it the lawsuit? Was it a simple empty affidavit? Exactly what was Maryanne Firth saying here? People rely on clarity from a newspaper, facts that are verifiable, something tangible. All of that may be true, but the Standard was the newspaper that ensured not a word of the alleged affair or divorce of former Mayor Brian McMullan reached the public's ears. If that's not censorship than someone please explain what is the English meaning of the word.

Before any yelping squeezes from the Standard's editors or 'journos' for my comments, I will impart more information. I interviewed Patricia McMullan, the ex-Mrs. Brian McMullan, in a Tim Hortons in Thorold with a witness present. This interview took place on the 9^th of January 2016, lasting one hour, 54 minutes and 33 seconds. How am I so precise? The interview was recorded. Patricia McMullan provided some disturbing information, and one thing that she said was that she went to see Doug Herod of The Standard. Doug always thought he was clever or funny in his style of commentary, but here he listened to all Patricia McMullan had to say, looked at all she had brought him and then said, there was nothing he could do. These were the words of the ex-Mrs. McMullan to me.

Debbie Zimmerman's panic or desire to shut down any public comment apparently still exists today. On May of 2019 something popped up on Twitter. The handle was @HarajukuNiagara – Niagara4Now, and the tweet read: “Grant's claim to fame: an award for “investigative journalism” err publishing illegally supplied closed session info. Debbie's claim to fame? Turner? Expensing hotel bills to taxpayers for a lover's tryst? #sad #nobailout.” This tweet had Zimmerman tagged.

Within a very short time Niagara4Now's tweet was removed and was not seen again, and under the handle @HarajukuNiagara the account had been renamed HND. Now these are only presumptions and who knows what is fact here. Is the Grant referred to Grant Lafleche of the Standard? Did Grant LaFleche threaten the mysterious Niagara4Now? Or was the Debbie referred to in the tweet Debbie Zimmerman? What hotel bills could have been “expensing” to taxpayers? There is a tag @dzimmermangrap1, is that a possible clue? Since Niagara4Now has disappeared was he or she threatened by Debbie Zimmerman just like I was? Questions without answers, or at least none that Debbie Zimmerman will provide if asked.

Zimmerman through her lawyer Jordan Goldblatt of Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP issued, served and filed a threat through the courts. Zimmerman used the justice system as her personal threat tool she pulled out of her handbag, as she might a stick of lipstick. I did not aplogise. I wanted to go into court. I wanted to gather all the evidence needed to defend myself against Debbie Zimmerman's allegations and threats. Zimmerman decided to let the court dismiss her action after five years. Now the question is, does our justice system provide consequences for such intentional threats?

Zimmerman paraphrases President Lincoln but I prefer this quote from Marie Henein, (Senior partner at Henein Hutchinson LLP), a very well known Canadian lawyer when she appeared at IdeaCity's annual conference in June 2019. Ms. Henein said: “That's what its about, all under the guise that this, an elected official is the true voice of the people. That's a scam, friends, a complete and utter scam, snake oil.”