03.31.2019 09:37 PM

Tale of the tape


  1. duojet says:


    I shook my head a few times when PMO spin machine started bemoaning the fact that JWR’s recording was “unethical”.

    Those clowns surrendered the Hill of Ethics a long time ago.

  2. Sean says:

    They say desperate times require desperate measures. There’s a lot of truth to this re JWR. She was being set up to go rogue and undermine the rule of law. The pressure was relentless and thuggish. Knowing full well about the Machiavellian nature of Trudeau, Butts and others, she resorted to gathering evidence which is impossible to dispute. She did the right thing, the brave thing and the only thing she could have done.

  3. Max says:

    One thing is for certain, if Edmonton, that proud city in the heart of Alberta, votes that shameless, feckless, spinner of yarns -Mr. Randy Boissonault back in as their MP, that’ll be an indication democracy has it’s limits. If he’s rightfully defeated, people can have faith in the electoral process. The sooner we’ve all seen the last of that rat bastard, the better.

  4. Tee says:

    When you’ve seen a pattern in the work place and you know the knives are out for your job. You put a device in your pocket every time you meet one on one with your supervisor. Your meetings are all praise no criticism. Then when the inevitable happens you play it for your employment lawyer. Lawyer says that as long as the conversation is one on one in a private meeting that’s legal. Then the company pays. True story.

  5. PoliticallyCorrected says:

    I listened to the entire call and a few things stood out.

    1) The media reports had led me to believe that JWR was the decision maker – as opposed to being the person in a position to override a recommended decision from someone else.

    2) I was troubled by the tone of the conversation, length, and repeated pressure during this conversation.

    I am not surprised JWR taped the conversation. In my opinion, it sounded like a last chance to fall in line, before being fired/demoted. It also sounded like there had been many similar conversations before.

    Obviously the PMO has all the power, but this issue has really brought home to me that the makeup of the government, whether 50% female or not, 50% minority or not, is irrelevant. Although I don’t care about the race or sex of MPs, I have cared about their previous experience and qualifications. But apparently MPs and heads of departments have 0% autonomy and so it is irrelevant who they are and what they bring to the table.

    So in future I will be basing my vote for this federal Liberal government entirely on who the leader is. What a shame.

    • Vancouverois says:

      ” The media reports had led me to believe that JWR was the decision maker – as opposed to being the person in a position to override a recommended decision from someone else.”

      Exactly. This is a part of the story that many people don’t seem to understand. JWR wasn’t making the decision to prosecute; she was respecting the independently-made decision of someone else whose job it is to decide these things.

      While she did have the power to override that decision, it could only be justified in the most extraordinary of circumstances. She’d effectively be saying that the current Director of Public Prosecutions must resign.

  6. Max says:

    A reminder of who goes in front of a camera, microphone or Twitter: Sheila Copps, Judy Sgro, Randy “Out for Justice” Boissonault, Patty Hajdu.

    And who doesn’t: Chrystia Freeland, Ralph Goodale, Dominic LeBlanc. Hmmmmmm….. Wonder why? I’ve never been in a War Room, but I’m thinking their silence is NOT by accident or oversight. Oh, to be a fly on the wall of in camera Cabinet Meetings these days.

    • Max,

      You can add Marc Garneau to that 2nd list.

      My faith in my ministers is slowly ebbing away but as the golden rule says, Hope springs eternal that they will all finally rise to the occasion and stand with JWR & JP.

  7. J.H. says:

    I still can’t find an answer to this question. Why was Butts so convinced that Ex-Chief Justice Bev M. would not rule out JWR interfering as he told her C of S? Had they already talked to her. What if any was her involvement?

    ‘Prince asked a hypothetical.

    “What,” she asked, “if the opinion comes saying, ‘She can review it, but she shouldn’t,’ or simply, ‘She can’t review it’?”

    “Mr. Butts stated, ‘It wouldn’t say that,’” Prince told JWR.

    Prince remembered this very clearly, JWR said in her written submission to the justice committee, “because this response made her nervous.”

    I bet it did: It’s not every day that high-ranking government officials talk about a former chief justice with such overt familiarity and with such a casual sense of ownership.’

  8. the salamander says:

    .. I actually listened very carefuly to client’s phone briefings with me.. many I also recorded so my department heads, camera, edit, sound etc could generate questions & strategy for me.. within budget or any other limitation or restraint.. kinda useful eh..

  9. Doug Brown says:

    Question for Warren…What consequences would JWR have faced if she had recommended a DPA even though the legislation seems to preclude SNC’s eligibility? Would the risk have included criminal charges or disbarment?SER5

  10. The Doctor says:

    I love how during the conversation — the whole purpose of which was to put pressure on JWR and interfere in an independent process — Wernick periodically would say “but I’m not interfering” or words to that effect.

    It’s like a mob enforcer sticking a gun in your mouth while saying “but I’m not threatening you.”

Leave a Reply to Warren Cancel reply

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