03.10.2019 01:26 PM

Eddie Goldenberg: still an asshole

“I just don’t really see it as a scandal. There is a political correctness here. Nobody wants to go after an indigenous woman minister. It’s become politically incorrect.”

That’s Eddie Goldenberg, channeling Sheila Copps and assorted Twitter trolls.

Oh, the stories I could tell about some people’s views about indigenous people.

 

13 Comments

  1. Vancouverois says:

    And who’s THIS guy?

    “‘It’s a pseudo-scandal. It’s crap. What the hell? You are doing business in Libya and you are not bribing?’ said Robert Bothwell, a professor of Canadian history and international relations at the University of Toronto. ‘It does suggest to me that the director of public prosecutions … is also nuts. And so is Wilson-Raybould. These people are delusional.'”

    • J.H. says:

      Sadly he confirms the belief held by many, that academia is full of left-wing progressives, concerned more with preaching their faith than actually educating our young future leaders.
      Probably helps also that he’s a big time LPC donor and supporter.

  2. Gord Tulk says:

    Playing the race card…

    The final – and this case, futile- defensive recourse.

    They are in the wrong. They know it.

    But the laurentian elite are powerful, insistent – indeed desperate – task masters who have a lot more at stake than just SNC-Lavalin.

  3. Max says:

    Man up Liberals. Put the ‘indigenous woman’ back on the stand and have a go at her. Bring it on. She’s up for it.

    On another note, on the 9000 job losses, I’m at a loss as to why the media is not countering this false narrative. IF SNC is tried and convicted (likely) and banned for bidding on federal contracts for the maximum 10 years (unlikely), this DOES NOT mean that other firms will not fill that void, that a bridge that needs replacing 3 years hence, will not get done. That new roads won’t get built, new hospitals will cease to be replaced, new damns won’t get built. The Canadian landscape will not be tumbleweeds and dust storms and locusts. Secondly, regardless of which Engineering firms wins these future contracts, they will also sub-contract much of this future work, which means jobs. For Canadians. So those loss of jobs is smoke and mirrors. Contracts will go to tender. Contracts will be awarded. Work will get done. Canadians will be working on these future jobs. Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Wakey wakey. This needs to be put to the Liberals.

    • Paul Carriere says:

      The Toronto Star occasionally has a column about the number of lies Trump tells, and rightfully so.
      Why are they not pointing out the number of lies being told by various members of the LPC, including the 9,000 job losses? (Rhetorical question alert)

    • Jim R says:

      [I would mod you up if I could]

      I’ll add another area that people seem to be taking at face value: pensions being in danger. I’ve googled this, and AFAICT SNC-L operates a group RRSP plan (i.e. a defined contribution pension plan). FWIW, it’s a 401k (similar to a group RRSP) in the US. As such, in the event that SNC-L went under (which is highly unlikely) the group RRSP assets should be totally safe. This is in contrast with a defined benefit plan whereby the sinking of the company ship could have negative effects on pensions. In other words, when the PM and others talks about safeguarding pensions, it would appear they’re being less than honest.

      Now, perhaps the PM and others are thinking about the pensions that are managed by the Caisse, given that the Caisse owns 20% of SNC-L. If so, that should also be a non-issue. If the pensions the Caisse manages can be endangered by the failings of any one company then the Caisse’s management should be taken out and shot (figuratively speaking of course).

      Since absolutely nobody has challenged the notion of pensions being in danger if SNC-L gets convicted in court, I’m wondering if I’m missing something. If so, would love to hear what it is.

      • Vancouverois says:

        I think the “pensions” argument is actually a reference to Quebec’s Caisse du Dépot, the enormous public retirement fund that all Quebeckers pay into mandatorily. It was established way back when during the Quiet Revolution as a source of capital for the government to tap for its various projects.

        The Caisse currently have bought 20% of all SNC-Lavalin shares, and Premier Legault has indicated that he’s willing to have them buy even more. So if the company goes under and those shares are suddenly worthless, the fund will take a hit.

        Of course, the real question is whether Quebeckers are well served by having their retirement funds easily manipulated by Quebec politicians for purposes other than funding Quebeckers’ retirements. For example, Parizeau was planning to use the Caisse after a Yes vote in 1995 to buy Quebec debt and Canadian dollars. Which would have left Quebec pensioners massively screwed; but hey, no price is too high for independence, right?

        It would be nice to have *somebody* point that out. But of course, no politician wants to be seen criticizing it, because that would be depicted as an attack on Quebec, and many nationalist voters would fall for that.

    • Gord Tulk says:

      The firms that take the work that SNC-Lavalin wants aren’t 20% owned by the caisse.

      And executive and senior managements won’t be a part of Quebec Inc.

    • Frank says:

      Don’t know about the media (counting the $600M, I suppose), but Pierre Poilievre has a pretty good piece on why the ‘9000 jobs’ theme is false:

      https://www.withpierre.ca/notaboutjobs

  4. Rich says:

    Thank you – well put. CBC did, however, address the reality of the “9000” number, late last week (as over-used but unlikely).
    Also apparent, as was foreshadowed by the reference in Wilson-Raybould’s testimony about Katie Telford saying she could get “all kinds of people to write op-eds” to say a reversal of the decision (which, of course, was made in accordance to the recently enacted law) was proper, there have been several of these.
    Not only Sheila Copps, but also Barbara Yaffe (Vancouver Sun / Globe and Mail: Look Away There’s No Scandal Here), and, more recently Andrew Cohen in the Ottawa Citizen (March 5) have also contributed misinformation on the story. Cohen’s piece was a re-iteration of Yaffe’s but with more spin.
    Cohen is a professor of Journalism, from what I’ve read, as well as a writer of books on P.E. Trudeau and L.B. Pearson (read what you will, into that). I wonder what type of journalism a biased, propaganda propagator, such as he, is teaching at that school – Yellow Press?
    Regarding “higher education”, it seems an odd coincidence that J. Trudeau, G. Butts, B. Yaffe, and A. Cohen share the same alma mater: McGill University (not to mention the same political loyalty). Their

  5. Rich says:

    The continuation of my rant:

    Their ethics seem to be more in line with those of Jimmy McGill (“it’s all good, man”).

    R.

  6. Rich says:

    Actually, on second thought, I retract that previous statement. It would be an insult to Saul Goodman.

    R.

  7. Derek Pearce says:

    I would almost agree with the likes of Copps and Goldenberg, they’re being pragmatic right? Except, except, except, except: this goes totally against what Team Trudeau fucking campaigned on.
    This was going to be a new era of taking women’s opinion’s being taken seriously, of being transparent about decision making and of decentralizing the control of the PMO (vs the ways of Voldemort, er I mean Harper), this was supposed to be sunny ways. DON’T CAMPAIGN ON OR PROMISE THAT SHIT IF YOU DON’T MEAN IT! The electorate are distracted mostly but they’re not fools and they get pissed when they’ve been had.
    That’s why Trudeau’s only hope now a) is to offer a true apology and admit his & his staff’s interference was wrong and apologize to JWR herself for how this was handled and b) promise that this matter as far as his gov’t is concerned is now over and hands-off and ENTIRELY in the hands of the DPP. (And then to stay hands-off). This is the only way to put this to bed and behind them.
    I’ve decided that these 2 steps being taken are the only way I will vote Liberal this fall. Luckily I live in a riding that will never ever go Conservative so I don’t have to worry about voting Liberal or not, but there ain’t many of those ridings. So they’d best do as close a version as possible of what is written above or they’ll lose.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


*