04.01.2019 05:00 AM

Late night caller

So, I am authorized to tell you this much.

Last night, I got a call from an intermediary. Someone I trust. I was asked if I would accept a call from someone in Ottawa. Someone important. And I was asked if I would keep it strictly confidential.

I said I would only do so if the person on the other end of the line observed certain basic rules. For example, no threats. No promises – requested or extended. No record of it, in any form.

I thought about it, and I finally said okay. And then this person called up, and it was…weird.

He expressed some regret, and – eventually – I expressed some, too. He undertook to change his approach, and I undertook to drop the #LavScam stuff for a while. (Until I see a change, that is. Until some people up there start acting like what they are – which is, individuals interested only in doing the right thing.)

Anyway, that’s all I can tell you. I’m not going to tell you his name, so don’t even bother asking. But it’s evident to me, one, that there are real people on either side. And, two, we all need to do a bit of self-examination.

This is mine.


  1. Michael McKim says:

    April Fools?

  2. Des says:

    Is this story as true as a story you posted on this very day last year when you said you were running for the PC Party of Ontario? If so, unlike the story last year, I almost fell for it!

  3. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    I hope the caller is a true reflection of the other he finally coming to his political senses.

    But words are cheap: let the other he quash all moves in caucus to expel JWR and JP — and let the other he do it publicly, before microphones and cameras.

    Like I said, talk is cheap.

  4. Dave says:

    Must be April fools. I can’t see you falling for that joke.

  5. Sean says:

    It could be true. Then again Warren has a good sense of humour and it might be April fools. Then again the caller may have been Adam Vaughan-has Adam found religion? I doubt it was Justin-he’s getting ready to go to the hoosegow. It’s a mystery.

    • Fred from BC says:

      That was the beauty of this year’s offering…it really was quite possible under the circumstances. Only one word (repeated twice) gave it away , and you really had to be lucky to catch it.

      Nicely done, Mr. K. Best one yet…

  6. Well, either way, one thing is dead certain: not a single Conservative is going to need a laxative today. It likely will make most of them shit, wondering what if????

  7. Max says:

    Geez, I fell for that! Damn. If its April Fools, WK got me good. Ruined my morning coffee. Zing.

  8. Phil says:

    “Wilson-Raybould could very well be the most conniving player in the game, but that would still have no bearing on whether the prime minister and his office tried to interfere in the justice system for partisan, political interests. That’s what matters most here.” –Robyn Urback

    The “other side” are doing everything in their power to obfuscate and cover up. They are not interested in doing “the right thing”.

  9. ABB says:

    Well, when the PM wants to talk to you, the PM finds a way to do so, whether through a trusted intermediary or directly. And even when it’s April Fool’s Day.

  10. Martin says:

    I do an annual AF joke at work. This year I did two. My main one but I also texted a few people this morning that Trudeau had resigned last night(thinking I wasn’t the only one that did). People who NEVER fall for my jokes and should know better wanted to believe it so bad, they fell hard.

  11. debbie says:

    I actually believed this for about an hour (and was cursing him) until I took note of the date.

  12. Fred from BC says:

    Sounds plausible enough, until the paragraph that states the intention to drop the LavScam stuff *until* people start to do the right thing (not “after”? Okayyyy…)

  13. Neal Ellenor says:



  14. Steve T says:

    While this may in fact be an AF joke, as many have suspected, I would find that a bit disappointing.

    Many of the things WK said in this post are true. There ARE real people on both sides. Stories ARE rarely black and white. Is is possible that some folks on JT’s side ARE interested in changing their ways.

    So often, in our busy rushed lives, we find it convenient to paint cartoonish “good” and “bad” opponents in a conflict. Rarely is that actually the case.

    I say all of this as a Conservative supporter who is quite enjoying the comeuppance that JT and his virtue-signalling crew are getting. But I also realize they are people, and this whole situation is far more complex than just “JWR good. JT bad.”

    • Mike Jeffries says:

      Currently, the LPC is infected with the VSv (virtual signaling virus). Listening to Randy Boissonnault on Evan Solomon tell it that this whole thing is about jobs. And why not! Shouldn’t the PM be for jobs? Surely it’s elementary that he would be so fixated on jobs that he would go the extra mile?
      And JWR, is she not infected with the VSv? What is her endgame? Is it to appear absolutely righteous in all of this? For what purpose? Is destroying her own party over this matter so necessary? Or is there a motive behind all of this on her part besides this virtual signaling of ‘rule of law’ which we all know doesn’t exist anywhere!

      • Mike,

        Her job was to protect the PM from himself. It also happens to be the PMO’s job but they are better at dropping the ball. Wonder if anyone’s noticed?

        She DID her job.

        • Mike Jeffreis says:

          The difficulty with this argument that “she did her job” is that she is part of a team. That’s the way parliament works. Ministers don’t go and make their own policies.
          What she didn’t do is obvious to me. JWR didn’t protect herself from making tough decisions. Yes, she has the final say on certain matters. But, protecting herself means that one understand one’s own limitations and experience. Did she consult broadly regarding this decision? She was being pushed in that direction also for her own protection as (1) AG and (2) JM, cabinet member, caucus member. She too needed protection from making the wrong decision. I don’t see evidence that she consulted broadly on this new thing before reaching a final decision. Do you?

          • Mike,

            I take your point but remember that this doesn’t even rise to a statutory cabinet-level decision. Wouldn’t that be far more indicative of whether broad-based consultation was required either at the cabinet, parliamentary or bureaucratic level?

            Granted, in the final analysis, it remains a debatable point, and a significant one.

            (They could always reference it to the SCOC.)

          • Fred from BC says:

            “Did she consult broadly regarding this decision? She was being pushed in that direction also for her own protection as (1) AG and (2) JM, cabinet member, caucus member. ”

            Problem is, the legislation the Liberals passed which created DPAs, whether it was deliberately done for the benefit of SNC-Lavalin or not, specifically *disqualified* them from eligibility for it (on more than one condition, too). Once JWR, as the AG, had determined that and made her decision accordingly, any further attempt to get her to change her mind *by anyone* was both inappropriate and illegal, if I’m understanding the legal arguments correctly.

            And this talk about bringing Beverly McLaughlin in for “an opinion” manages to be both laughable and appalling at the same time. That was Paul Martin blurting out that he was going to kill the Notwithstanding Clause desperation, right there.

            If JWR and JP are booted from caucus, and anyone follows, I can’t see the LPC winning another term with Junior at the helm.

            (subject to Andrew Scheer being able to contain any potential Bozo Eruptions between now and then, of course)

          • Vancouverois says:

            What the hell is wrong with you?

            JWR clearly *did* consider all the elements of the decision, and came to the conclusion that it would STILL not be justified for her to take the EXTRA-ORDINARY step of overruling the independent, non-partisan Director of Public Prosecutions.

            The people pressuring her to take this EXTRA-ORDINARY step are not lawyers – the onus is on THEM to understand THEIR limitations. And yet they continue to ignore her professional advice. They pretend she didn’t send them the DPP’s reasoning – although she says she has proof that she did – and simply refuse to listen to anything she has to say.

            She states with unambiguous clarity that this pressure is inappropriate interference… and yet Wernick brushes that aside completely. He clearly couldn’t care less.

            She mentions that the PMO has brazenly stated that they don’t care about the law – and he neither denies it, nor expresses any concern about it. All he cares about is doing what the PM has decide is to be done.

            This tape proves beyond any doubt that Wernick lied to the Committee about what happened. He told them that he had no idea about her concerns, even though she states them to him. Unambiguously. Several times.


            That’s all anyone with any sense of morality or basic decency needs to know.

  15. Robert White says:

    I fell for last year’s April Fools’ joke too. If I fall for the 2020 April fools joke please remind me of how gullible I am.


  16. Max says:

    Could that caller have been Randy “Out for Justice” Boissonault? I hear he’s on the case, with Peter Parker.

  17. Bob Yuhasz says:

    I’m glad all these other people caught the April Fool’sprank or you would have got me again!

    • Bob,

      I fall for it, practically even damned year. LOL.

      (He’s really that good!)

    • Martin says:

      Hey Bob, if you are still looking at this thread, curious if you and Dave Levac fell for this when you came to work that day. I see parliament wasn’t sitting. If so, you would have been in good company. The mayor declared a conflict because of his wife’s business within 2 minutes of my announcement, Phil M offered to help all he could, the Chamber staff across the street were pissed because we didn’t tell them about the rollout, a bunch of female lawyers at Waterous wanted to sign up their kids, a Ministry of Social Services guy congratulated us, etc. etc..


  18. Ren G says:

    Did you record the call?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.