What Scheer Revealed on CPAC today

Image: https://gfletchy.com/


What Scheer Revealed on CPAC today

... and what the media were talking about before that.

Today I watched blogger Chycho's video Let's Make Gluten-Free Pancakes and Talk about Life in which he whipped up a whole new variety of pancakes (this time gluten-free) while talking about life in general. It was literally food for the soul.

Afterwards I felt sufficiently refreshed to nip over to CPAC and watch Andrew Scheer joyously report to the media that he's received a letter from Trudeau's lawyers that threatens a lawsuit against him.

So, now we know our PM is litigious as well as duplicitous.

Other than that, Scheer had little else to say in either English or French except that his own legal team assure him that Trudeau has no case at all, but that he really, really hopes Trudeau will go through with it because he wants to hear him questioned under oath.  I wonder what either of them will say if asked, "Are you doing this in the cause of justice, or simply as a pre-election gimmick?"

When asked outright by media if Trudeau has actually done anything illegal, Scheer equivocated.  He wouldn't say yes, but instead replied that he has asked the RCMP to investigate.

And that was pretty much that.  Up until that moment the media had been focussed on Jody Wilson-Raybould:

From Macleans: Jody Wilson-Raybould - The Liberal Party is not something I understand anymore.

• Q: The fact that you wanted to remain a Liberal right up until yesterday perplexes some people, including some Liberal MPs I’ve talked with. They think loyalty to the leader is sacrosanct and caucus unity is inviolable. Is there something to that?
• A: I believe in loyalty. I believe in solidarity. I believe in being a member of a team. What I don’t believe in is that you have blind loyalty, or that you have loyalty in isolation of facts and evidence and in absence of wanting to see the truth. I mean, blind loyalty is not something that underpins a democracy; it underpins another kind of politics, in my mind.

Could Wilson-Raybould be referring to fascism? One might think so, considering the Newspeak (doublethink) language of the Government's announcement in 2018 of the intention to legislate Deferred Prosecution Agreements. * (See the relevant section at bottom of this post.)

The language used in the document reveals the subterfuge. The title, located on Page 202 of the documentation, is "Addressing Corporate Integrity", when one might have expected it to have said "lack of integrity".

Corporate wrongdoing is not being addressed because it's wrong; it's addressed because it creates inconvenience for big business. What actually amounts to a mere slap on the wrist is referred to as "taking action against improper, unethical and illegal business practices" --  and the fact that other countries, especially the United States, advocate the soft approach is license for Canada to follow suit. All of the kids are doing it, so it must be okay, eh?

Do you remember your mother saying, "If all the kids decide to jump off the roof, are you going to do that too?"

The government announcement refers to this gentle treatment as "strengthening its approach" while graft, bribery and outright thievery are reduced to mere misdemeanours. If we send them to their rooms without dessert they will learn their lesson.

Time to revisit the excellent and eerily prescient video documentary "The Corporation 2003" [YouTube] and also the definition of "Newspeak".

Where do these would-be mind benders learn their double talk?  And how is it that Jody Wilson-Raybould does not appear to have used it? Perhaps because she takes more pride in her own personal integrity than in shoring up the fictitious reputations of others? If so, and if she gained the Liberal leadership and ran for PM, I might actually be tempted to finally vote Liberal again.

But, still, there is the spectre of Canada's Foreign Minister:

HuffingtonPost: Chrystia Freeland Says Foreign Interference In Federal Election 'Very Likely'

Not this again!

Look at the accompanying photo: these people are attending a "Defend Media Freedom" conference, yet what they are actually attempting to do is control certain unfavourable media outlets. More blatant double talk you won't hear anywhere!

Take a look at Chrystia Freeland's eyebrow action and hand gesture. It strikes me that she knows she's fabricating.  She knows that Canada doesn't need Russia to influence the upcoming election; the Liberals themselves have accomplished that quite effectively -- if the polls suggesting a drop in Liberal support are accurate.

The more Freeland opens her mouth, the more she seems to come across as bought and paid for by outside influences. Could George Soros be just one of them?

On a personal note: I once did the books for a university conference centre where the office manager had started up a convenience store in close vicinity to the campus (not to mention that his assistant was having what she hoped would be an advantageous affair with the managing director).

He used the conference centre's mailing stamps, paper and photocopy equipment to advertise this new venture, and he sometimes vacated his desk for hours to oversee the business of the store.  It took me quite a while to get up the moxy to point out to him that this was not entirely kosher, and his response was that I was "too moralistic", as if that in itself were more questionable than what he was doing.

I was lucky to find a much better position in the university fund raising office, so was able to escape the atmosphere of mistrust. That's right, he no longer trusted me, though I never did report his activities! Not exactly sure why I kept quiet, but I probably would have ended up feeling much like Wilson-Raybould.

Like government, universities too often maintain prestigious reputations far and above the actual internal reality, though I was lucky to associate with one or two really upstanding department heads who didn't let me down, and who valued my capabilities, my reliability and my honesty.

But Justin Trudeau, "phony in chief", is not the type to value that level of honesty. Wilson-Raybould's moral standards seemed too absolute; she stubbornly avoided the middle road. Not to mention that she was willing to take a chance on jeopardizing her own situation when it came to maintaining her personal integrity and that of the office she held.

Too often the people wielding power are the ones who think one can actually be excessively moral!  They equate it with being judgmental. One is actually judged to be "too judgemental". And the more their own power and prestige seem even indirectly threatened by a damning truth, the less secure among those players find themselves willing to help "kill the messenger".

That's what's wrong with politics; always has been. Can Scheer promise better?  After all, this whole scenario has been like a godsend to him, and making the most of it is politically advantageous to him. But regardless of political stance, it still seems that the average MP's aspirations for election and advancement strongly depend on not seeing, not hearing, and the fine art of dissembling.

The Tyee has a whole list of dirty stuff in which Scheer's predecessor was involved. And with Harper having recently re-emerged from the woodwork, who's to say he isn't Scheer's Gerald Butts?

Note: The keyword in the following news item is "preliminary", and then consider how many years the SNC-Lavalin judicial process has already dragged on.

CTV: Prosecutor cited 'gravity' of alleged SNC-Lavalin offences: court documents

• Canada's director of public prosecutions cited the "nature and gravity" of SNC-Lavalin's alleged corruption in Libya in making a preliminary decision not to negotiate a special plea agreement on the criminal charges it faces, the company says in a new court filing.

Remember this?
Former SNC-Lavalin executive has obstruction charge dropped

• Excessive delays leads to charges being dropped 

(See timeline addendum at bottom of earlier YYC post: Lessons in Tap Dancing)

 ========================

*
Budget 2018: Page 202: Addressing Corporate Integrity

• Corporate wrongdoing imposes significant economic and social costs. It undermines competition, threatens the integrity of markets, puts up barriers to economic growth, increases the cost and risk of doing business, and undermines public and investor confidence. Many governments, including the Government of Canada, are committed to taking action against improper, unethical and illegal business practices and holding companies to account for such conduct. That is why the Government has already committed to increasing Canadian companies’ compliance with human rights standards abroad with the launch of the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise. Based on the consultation conducted in the fall of 2017, the Government intends to further strengthen its  approach to addressing corporate wrongdoing, enhancing the government-wide Integrity Regime and introducing legislation for Canadian Deferred Prosecution Agreements, to be implemented through Judicial Remediation Orders (JRO), as an additional tool to hold corporate offenders to account. The JRO would establish a regime to sanction criminal conduct appropriately and deter wrongdoing.These actions are in line with those taken by some of our key trading partners such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and France. Detailed proposals for enhancements to the Integrity Regime and the introduction of a new JRO regime will be brought forward in the near future.​