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 4th 2019. On April 2nd 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 7th 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 12th 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.
