04.09.2019 09:55 AM

#LavScam boom

My God I love Jane and Jody.


  1. Steve says:

    Might have even been on your Twitter feed WK, but I recall reading last week that expulsion from caucus required a majority vote from all members, according to Parliament of Canada Act. Also recall conventional wisdom dictating that CAUCUS should vote to expel JP and JWR to give Junior some breathing room on the issue (“… it was THEIR decision, not mine”). But no, his ego wouldn’t allow it, it had to be HIS decision.

    I’m running out of popcorn watching this on-going drama… but I’m sure not complaining!

  2. J.H. says:

    This is not new, Trudeau’s media pals just chose to ignore it. Chong was on PnP last week and explained the law to Vassy. CBC News even had Lib Caucus chair on, who couldn’t defend the PM’s move. Still CBC’s crack reporters said/did nothing and rest of the LSM sluts went on tanking for Trudeau
    Typical Canadian Media!

  3. the real Sean says:

    Of course JT broke the law. And lets take it one step further. That caucus has the right to remove the leader at any moment by a simple vote.

  4. Joseph Taylor says:

    Actually Michael Chong said this they day they were expelled. Credit where credit is due

    • Adam says:

      Seems to me that if he insisted on being an “anonymous source”, the media would have quoted him far and wide.

  5. Joe says:

    Justin will say he experienced that law differently. He only expelled them to prevent the Liberal caucus from having the traumatic experience of voting them out. He was just trying to prevent cases of PTSD. All hail our considerate Dear Leader.

  6. Sam Davies says:

    Not sure about the optics on this.
    Sure, the JT haters love this, but won’t some regular people see this as good reason to give her the boot? This is without doubt, splitting hairs. My guess would be that JT had a fair idea that a significant % of caucus wanted both the boot and expedition of the boot.

    Frankly, I don’t believe any government should be able to decree how other parties handle things internally – it is up to them, and if the people agree and support, they give their votes in support. This law seems to have an illusion of democracy.

    • Warren says:

      Your passive-aggressive defence of the indefensible is a bit irritating.

      • Sam Davies says:

        Not sure I would consider my post passive-aggressive.
        More skeptical and uncertain.
        I welcome you to change my mind.

        I’ll admit I don’t know the specifics behind how this became law (how the votes rolled out), but it strikes me as odd. This law strikes me as a reasonable measure for a party to adopt – I’m not sure how I feel about it being forced on other parties. I see this as a conflict between diversity and authority.

      • Mark D says:


        I’m a lifelong political conservative. I’m also on record as stating Dr Philpott has greatly impressed me with her grace, intelligence, and moral compass throughout this whole affair. And that I would vote for her if I lived in her riding or if she became party leader.

        That being said, I kinda get Sam’s point that neither parliament nor a political party should decree the internal affairs of another political party. Even if I think I the LPC would be better off asking Mr Trudeau to resign and promoting Dr Philpott in his place.

        What am I missing here?

        • Vancouverois says:

          As I understand it, the parties have the choice of opting out. But they *do* have to go on record about that. So if they want to leave the power to eject caucus members to the leader, they should have held a vote on the first day of Parliament to say so. The point being that in doing so openly, they would be letting the voting public know where the caucus stands on these issues.

          In any case, it is the law. If Trudeau wanted to repeal it, he’s had ample time to do so; but he can’t just *ignore* it.

      • Mark D says:

        P.S. I do think Dr Philpott’s challenge is brilliant from a purely political perspective. It forces the rest of the Liberal caucus to take a stand one way or the other, for which they are then responsible to their constituents.

        • Fred from BC says:

          ” It forces the rest of the Liberal caucus to take a stand one way or the other,”

          I like that. Those names might be handy during the election campaign (assuming that any vote taken won’t be a secret ballot).

          • Mark D says:

            Even if it is taken in secret ballot, we know where the average MP stands. They can no longer try and pin the blame on Trudeau alone.

    • Kinsey says:

      “This law seems to have an illusion of democracy.”

      Sam, this legislation was debated upon and enacted by a democratically-elected legislature.

      Any other laws in the federal statue books you consider illusory?

      • Joe says:

        Kinsey, good point.

        I note that some people (e.g. Trudeau, his caucus, and his supporters) prefer to choose which laws they follow and which can be bypassed.

        Justin experiences the law differently.

        • Vancouverois says:

          Exactly. The Liberals constantly treat the law as an inconvenience that they don’t have to obey if it gets in the way of what they want to do.

          It’s appalling – and frightening, and shameful – that so many people just seem to ignore that.

    • Montrealaise says:

      That’s a bit like a judge finding a defendant guilty without going through the motions of a trial, because the jury would have convicted him anyway and this saves everyone time and trouble.

      • Vancouverois says:

        Exactly! This is very much the Liberal attitude. They either don’t see the danger in it, or they just don’t care.

  7. Gordon says:

    Many people seem to question whether bribing foreign governments is wrong. It is wrong because those countries will never break free of corruption if multinationals keep dangling millions in front of officials who are one step from a mud hut. It is also wrong because regardless of local customs in poor countries, CANADA HAS LAWS THAT PROHIBIT SUCH BRIBES.
    Many people seem to question whether it is wrong for the PM and his team to pressure the Justice Minister. It is wrong because everyone is supposed to be equal under the law. It is also wrong because the DP law SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES CONSIDERATION OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMIC INTERESTS.
    Many people seem to question whether it is wrong for the PM to unilaterally eject JWR and JP from caucus. It is wrong because he preached respect for the independance of MPs and a move away from PMO dominance. It is also wrong BECAUSE THE LAW SAYS HE CAN’T DO IT.
    Should our elected leaders be expected to follow the law? Is that really subject to debate? Amazing.

    • Howard Bittner says:

      Absolutely right on point…our country, in the big scheme of things, is relatively corruption free. However, when our PM, who should be front and centre, demonstrably upholding the law (versus just talking) violates the law in spirit at the least, then we are on the slippery slope to Venezuela…

  8. Mike Jeffries says:

    “Many people seem to question whether bribing foreign governments is wrong.”
    Those people need to wakeup and understand why those “foreign governments” are a mess! The crisis in Libya is telling. Amorality leads to anarchy. It’s Rule of Law that saves us but people like Justin who loves those amoral dictators will make us into a Libya if we keep electing such idiots!

    • The Doctor says:

      Furthermore, and related to that, if we ever want certain third-world countries to rise out of poverty, combatting corruption is a necessary part of that process. Look at countries like Nigeria and DRC — ridiculously endowed with natural resources and riches, yet most people are dirt poor. Total kleptocracies. There’s no question that seriously cracking down on corruption and bringing in more transparency and accountability would benefit the people of those countries who don’t happen to be the kleptocrats and their entourages.

  9. Vancouverois says:

    As I recall, it was the same thing when he took the supposedly “bold” step of expelling all the Liberal Senators from caucus without warning… and then discovered that the Liberal party constitution didn’t allow him to do that, either.

    Once again, he and his cult-like followers are demonstrating that to them, the letter of the law is just an inconvenience, to be ignored if you can get away with it.

  10. Robert White says:

    Trudeau has the power as PM to direct the affairs of caucus and can also act unilaterally to boot caucus members at his own discretion. No law in the land can stop the Liberal Party caucus from acting on internal party issues as they have autonomy outside of the law as it is applied by the legislature.
    RCMP will never look at internal party matters of caucus and hold the PM to account. Most assuredly the PMO made the decision for the PM. Dissension within the ranks of caucus is understandably an issue that the PM had to deal with in a measured response of expulsion due to a lack of allegiance to government over rule of law minutia.


    • Vancouverois says:

      It’s the law of the land. If Trudeau didn’t like it, he had ample time to repeal it; but not even the Prime Minister can just *ignore* it.

    • Walter says:

      The thing is, political parties receive federal money – maybe most notably in tax credits for donations. Of course if an organization receives money from the government, it is reasonable for the government to have rule that they must follow.
      In this case, the rule is to acknowledge the fact that an MP is elected partly as an individual, and partly as a member of the party. In order to prevent authoritarian rule of the party leader, the law requires that most party members agree to kick out an MP.

      • A party and a caucus are two distinct organizations. You can have one without the other.

        Caucus are under the jurisdiction of Parliament which is why they complained to the Speaker and why the RCMP would never investigate this.

  11. Ronald O'Dowd says:

    I give up.

Leave a Reply

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