Tag Archive: Gerald Butts

Failure-ology

— 03.06.2020 08:23 AM

Why did Justin Trudeau lose a million votes in the 2019 election? Why did he lose his majority? Why did he lose his standing in the world, and with Canadians?

Because of LavScam.  Because of the Aga Khan, and unbalanced budgets, and no electoral reform, and serial scandals.  Because of things he did personally, too: Aga Khan, LavScam, and Gropegate, and elbowing a female MP, and blackface, and the unrelenting solipsism and conceits.

All that.  But it has been the arrogance of Trudeau and his cabal, too.  Konrad Yakabuski writes up an indictment about that, here.  Highlights below.

One of the great ironies of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government is that it has proved so ineffective in the one area where it so emphatically promised to outdo its predecessors.

It was always presumptuous on the part of Mr. Trudeau and his former principal secretary, Gerald Butts, to suggest they would run a more effective government than any of those that came before them. But by dropping the ball so spectacularly on so many key files, Mr. Trudeau’s Prime Minister’s Office set itself up for the failure that has now befallen it.

…The Trudeau PMO has never seemed clear on its own priorities. So how could it expect the senior bureaucracy to be clear on them? At both the micro-policy level (electoral reform, balancing the budget by 2019) and macro-policy level (reconciliation with Indigenous peoples, supporting economic growth while fighting climate change), the Trudeau government has continually sent mixed signals to the bureaucracy about how seriously it takes its own promises.

When it has sprung into action, the Trudeau PMO has typically made a mess of it. The SNC-Lavalin affair, which started out with a straightforward move to bring Canadian law on deferred prosecution agreements in line with that of other developed countries, nearly destroyed Mr. Trudeau’s government all because the PMO failed to abide by its own deliverology credo.

It is perhaps no coincidence that the Trudeau government’s most notable successes – the implementation of the Canada Child Benefit and medical aid in dying, and the negotiation of new health-care funding agreements with the provinces – were overseen by low-key ministers who kept their eyes on the ball rather than their Twitter feeds. Social Development Minister Jean- Yves Duclos and Jane Philpott, Mr. Trudeau’s first health minister, were focused on results, not retweets.

Overall, however, execution has proved to be the Achilles heel of this government. It has proved inept at buying fighter planes or fixing the Phoenix pay system. It promised a bigger role for Canada in global affairs but has earned a reputation abroad for being fickle and stingy. The Canada Infrastructure Bank extends its record for overpromising and underdelivering.

Indeed, the scariest words in Canadian English may have become: “I’m from the Trudeau government, and I’m here to help.”

 


Comments (46)

#LavScam latest: former SNC exec found guilty

— 12.15.2019 10:47 AM

Among other things, this verdict suggests some of us (Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott in particular) were right when we said that crimes had indeed taken place – and that no politicians should be interfering in the resulting trials.

I wonder what they’re thinking in PMO right now? Do they ever say: “Hey, maybe we were wrong to do what we did.”

Kind of doubt it.

Former SNC-Lavalin executive vice-president Sami Bebawi has been found guilty on all counts at his fraud and corruption trial.

He will remain free until sentencing.

Bebawi, 73, was on trial over the last six weeks at the Montreal courthouse. The jury had been deliberating since Thursday.

Serving as the firm’s executive vice-president from 2000 to 2006, Bebawi faced five charges in all: fraud, bribing a foreign public official — former dictator Moammar Gadhafi’s son, Saadi Gadhafi — laundering the proceeds of crime, and two counts of possessing property obtained by crime.

Throughout the trial, the Crown positioned Bebawi as the man behind what it described as SNC-Lavalin’s “business model” in Libya: paying millions in kickbacks and bribes to keep obtaining lucrative contracts.

“The company adopted an unusual, unlawful and dishonest practice,” Crown prosecutor Anne-Marie Manoukian told jurors in her closing arguments, “by artificially inflating the prices of contracts, paying bribes and misappropriating money for personal gain.”


Comments (34)

My latest: Trump trumps Trudeau, and why

— 10.17.2019 09:36 AM

Justin Trudeau is less popular than Donald Trump.

Say it aloud, so that those still considering voting for Trudeau can hear you.

Because, you know, Donald Trump. The most sexist, most racist, most dishonest US president is more highly regarded than the Canadian Prime Minister. That’s hard to do, but Justin Trudeau has done it.

As far back as March, Trump was doing better than Trudeau. In that month, Ipsos found Trump’s approval rating was 43 per cent. Trudeau’s was 40.

In August, it got even worse. Zogby Analytics revealed that Trump had an approval rating of 51 per cent. Trudeau was “underwater,” Zogby reported, at 43 per cent.

And Toronto Sun pollster John Wright, of DART, has analyzed the data, and come up with the same conclusion as the others. “Trudeau’s personal approval numbers are below Trump’s,” says Wright. “So more selfies won’t help.”

And therein lies the rub. Wright has put his finger on the zeitgeist: this election isn’t remotely about issues. It’s a referendum on Justin Trudeau. And he’s been losing it.

What went wrong? How is Justin Trudeau – once the darling of international media, the beneficiary of Trudeaumania II, and the guy who propelled his party from a Parliamentary third place to first – now facing what HuffPo’s Althia Raj, no less, has declared the “possibility he won’t be Prime Minister much longer.” How did that happen?

Three reasons. The first: he over-promised and under-delivered.

Trudeau did that a lot. On electoral reform, on balanced budgets, on ethical reform, on being the feminist champion and the Indigenous reconciler: in every case, he promised the Earth but delivered only dust.

Trudeau’s true legacy is seen in the LavScam scandal, where he obliterated his credentials as the ethical paragon and liberator of women and Indigenous peoples. There, he cravenly tried to rescue a Quebec-based Liberal Party donor facing a corruption trial – and, along the way, revealed himself more than willing to brutalize two women, one Indigenous, who bravely stood up for the Rule of Law.

Second reason: he thinks he’s far more charming and entertaining than he actually is.

Some time ago, a member of Trudeau’s insular inner circle told this writer that one of their biggest problems was Trudeau’s unshakeable belief that he is funny. “He thinks he’s a comedian,” said this man. “He isn’t.”

Thus, making blackface his go-to party favour. Thus, his puerile penchant for dress-up, even when it humiliates Canadians, as in the infamous Griswolds-style Indian vacation. Thus, his utterly bizarre penchant for making jokes – remember “peoplekind?” – that aren’t merely jokes. They’re jokes that render him one.

Recently, this writer was told by a very senior Grit that Trudeau referred to NDP leader Jagmeet Singh as “Marge Simpson” – presumably a reference to Singh’s turban. (A Liberal campaign spokesman declined to comment about the allegation; an NDP war room member said they were aware of the “joke.”)

Why, why would Trudeau say such a thing? “Because he thought it was funny,” said this Parliamentarian.

The third and final reason that Justin Trudeau is less popular than Donald Trump is neatly, and expertly, mirrored in the Conservative Party’s shrewd attack ad slogan: “Justin Trudeau. Not as advertised.”

That pithy catchphrase, more than anything else, is why Trudeau is plumbing the polling depths, even more than Trump. Canadians have grown to believe that the former drama teacher is, indeed, just an actor.

Donald Trump, as detestable as he is to so many, is at least truthful about who he is. He doesn’t hide it.

Justin Trudeau, meanwhile, wears blackface to parties.

Because he’s never as comfortable as when he is wearing a mask.


Comments (29)

Why I can’t vote for Trudeau

— 10.16.2019 08:09 AM

I was Jean Chretien’s special assistant. I helped oversee his war room when he won in 1993 and 2000. I ran for the Liberals in B.C. in 1997.

And I can’t vote Liberal. I won’t. And I don’t think you should either.

Here’s why.

People vote for (or against) politicians for different reasons. In 2015, they voted for Justin Trudeau because he wasn’t Stephen Harper, who they’d grown tired of.

They voted for Trudeau because he was fresh and new and charismatic. Because he had his father’s surname. Because we (me especially) thought he’d be different.

They voted for him because he promised ethical and accountable government. They voted for him because he promised electoral reform, and balanced budgets, and harmonious relations with First Nations and the provinces and the world.

And now, many Canadians are voting against him because he didn’t do any of those things. He did the exact reverse.

He lied about balanced budgets and electoral reform. He didn’t deliver on harmony with other levels of government: First Nations and the provinces, and important international players — like China and the U.S. and India — think he’s a child.

And ethics? That didn’t work out so well, either. He’s the first sitting prime minister to have been found guilty of breaking ethics laws — in the Aga Khan and Lavscam scandals. In the latter case, the RCMP have said they are now reviewing the conduct of Trudeau’s government “carefully.” Some people may go to jail.

But for this writer — who happily voted for Liberal Nate Erskine-Smith in the Toronto Beach riding in 2015 — I can’t vote again for the Trudeau Party, which bears no resemblance to the Liberal Party of John Turner and Jean Chretien and Paul Martin. I can’t vote for it because it isn’t a political party.

It’s a cult.

It bears all the hallmarks of a cult. Slavish and unquestioning devotion to the leader. The willingness to punish and isolate critics and outsiders.

The fundamental belief that they are everything — in Trudeau’s case, that the Liberal Party is Canada, and vice versa. If you are against them, you are literally against Canada. That’s what they think.

Along with running some campaigns (winning and losing), I’ve written books about politics. Along the way, I’ve learned that people vote based on emotion, not reason.

In my case, my reasons for objecting to the Trudeau cult are deeply personal and real. I have written about, and opposed, racism for more than three decades. I am also a proud father of an indigenous girl.

How can I look my daughter in the eye and say I voted Liberal, after what Trudeau did to the female indigenous hero named Jody Wilson-Raybould? After he attacked her and exiled her for telling the truth? For saying no to a group of grasping men? For standing up for the rule of law?

I can’t do that.

How, too, can I vote for a man-boy who donned racist blackface — not once, not twice, but at least three times that we know about — and still say I fight racism? How can I claim to be against bigotry when I legitimize the bigotry of a clueless, overprivileged brat with my vote?

Politicians like to say that elections are about choices, because they are. They also are choices that are highly emotional and highly personal. Emotionally, personally, rationally, I cannot bring myself to vote for this loathsome cult.

And, with the greatest respect, I don’t know how you could either.


Comments (79)

CBC vs. CPC: when bias isn’t just perceived anymore

— 10.13.2019 07:44 AM

A reasonable apprehension of bias — that’s what we learned to call it in law school.

It’s the legal standard, in Canadian law, for disqualifying a judge or decision-maker in an administrative tribunal.

Bias is prejudice, mostly. It’s an unreasonably hostile feeling or opinion about a person or group. In law, we learned, it can be “real” or “perceived.” That is, it doesn’t have to actually happen right out in the open — the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled it can even happen when a decision-maker “might have” acted unfairly.

That’s when a judge or a decision-maker can be disqualified, and kicked off a case. But is a reporter a decision-maker, in the legal sense?

It’s not a question reserved for legal scholars, hidden away behind stacks of musty old volumes in a law library somewhere. On Friday, it became a question for the rest of us, too.

On Friday, the CBC — along with their newsreader Rosemary Barton, and Parliamentary Bureau reporter Jean-Paul Tasker — sued the Conservative Party of Canada. For real.

Their complaint: on the Internet, the Tories used 17 seconds of CBC video. About the Tories.

As the Conservative Party wrote in a release: “The 17 seconds of CBC clips in the video included (Postmedia columnist) Andrew Coyne highlighting how Justin Trudeau broke the law, Justin Trudeau telling a Canadian war veteran that he is ‘asking for more than we can give right now,’ and one CBC reporter questioning why the Liberals provided Loblaws with $12 million in tax dollars to install new refrigerators.”

When this writer heard about the lawsuit, it sounded like a joke, or an Internet meme. It was farcical.

Now, Conservatives have had a long (and sometimes also unreasonable) dislike for the CBC. Voters who identify themselves as conservative are acutely focused on media bias, particularly as it exists at progressive media organizations like CBC.

A number of Rasmussen polls conducted in the U.S. during the 2012 and 2016 presidential races found that two out of three conservative voters — and sometimes as many as three out of four — felt the media give progressive politicians a much easier time. They believe media bias is real.

So, when Justin Trudeau confidante Gerald Butts was recently photographed alone at an intimate dinner with Huffington Post Ottawa bureau chief Althia Raj — an English leaders’ debate moderator — Conservatives were apoplectic. It showed an inappropriate bias, they said.

Maybe so. Butts, for his part, was doing what politicos always do — he was trying to influence the media. Fine.

Raj, however, was doing something undeniably foolish. She was meeting privately with the most powerful unelected Liberal just before a critical debate, and thereby creating a perception that she would treat the Liberal leader differently.

Because Raj’s commentary has always been characterized by a pro-Trudeau tilt, a perception of bias was not unreasonable. At all.

In the case of the CBC lawsuit against the Conservative Party, however, the bias is not merely perceived. It is real. And it inarguably disqualifies Barton, Tasker and the CBC — all important decision-makers about the information millions of Canadians receive during this election — from broadcasting anything about the Conservative Party.

Truly: how can Andrew Scheer, or any of his candidates, now believe that the CBC will treat them fairly in news coverage? More importantly, how can the CBC’s viewers and listeners now believe that what they are seeing and hearing is free of bias?

After all, how the CBC handles a news story — how it writes it, how it edits it, how it headlines and promotes it — can destroy a political career in short order.

The CBC has said it was the “driver” behind the lawsuit, not the journalists. And it plans to remove the journalists from the lawsuit.

Whether they intended it or not, the CBC and Barton and Tasker have provided clear evidence of an appalling bias. They have shown they are utterly disinterested in being fair.

That lawsuit wasn’t a legal action. Given that the Tories now may win the election, it was a political suicide note.


Comments (53)

The rumours about Justin Trudeau

— 10.09.2019 12:22 PM

Rumours. It’s more than a Fleetwood Mac album.

Rumours about Justin Trudeau have littered Canadian newsrooms like confetti since the start of this election. Rumours about Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada.

As we now know, some of the rumours about the Liberal leader turned out to be true.

So, in 2014, this writer was told there were affidavits detailing inappropriate conduct between Trudeau and various young people. I simply did not believe it, but I raised the allegation directly with Trudeau’s most-senior adviser.

To my surprise, he acknowledged the allegations had been made in affidavits, but said that Trudeau’s insular inner circle were not worried. They had rebutting affidavits of their own to respond.

Subsequently, a female parliamentarian sent me an editorial written by a B.C. reporter in which she alleged that Trudeau had groped her, quote unquote, at a beer festival. While Trudeau said he did not act inappropriately, he apologized, saying “people can experience interactions differently.”

In 2016 and again in 2017, this writer was told by a senior Liberal that photos existed of Trudeau wearing blackface, dating back to his time as a teacher at a private school in Vancouver. The Liberal war room knew about the photos, he said.

Efforts to find any proof, however, were unsuccessful. It did not occur to us to simply check the private school’s year books. I — and others, as it turned out — did not believe Trudeau could be that stupid. To pose for photographers wearing blackface.

But it was true: At the age of 29, while a teacher and in a position of responsibility with children, Trudeau had indeed partied in racist blackface. Turned out he had done it several times, too.

Did the blackface rumour — now the blackface fact — mean that Trudeau was a racist? In no time, several non-white Liberal MPs hustled to microphones to say that, sure, the blackface incidents had happened. But Trudeau wasn’t a closeted drawing-room bigot, they insisted.

And then Omer Aziz, a former Trudeau government aide, authored a scalding op-ed in the Globe and Mail. He wrote about Trudeau and his inner circle, and their attitudes towards minorities: “Condescending attitudes were regularly revealed. Minorities were undermined, ghettoized. The casual disregard of the privileged was systemic. I felt like I could not breathe.” Aziz quit.

Those are just some of the rumours. Some turned out to be true, others are just false, or without a shred of proof. One is presently making the rounds on a fake-news website that has fooled many in the past, this writer included. It should not be taken seriously, in any way.

But those of us privileged to hold positions in the news media, whether we admire Trudeau or not, have an obligation to investigate and report. When the subject-matter is the prime minister of Canada — a man who has repeatedly held himself out as a feminist and anti-racist and a family man — we in the media owe our readers and our listeners the truth.

On a segment on a Toronto radio program this week, and in an opinion piece on Canadaland, this writer was criticized for wondering, in a single tweet, why a Globe and Mail reporter asked Trudeau about why he abruptly left the aforementioned Vancouver private school. My answer: Because it is relevant. Because it is newsworthy. Because it is important.

When the media start acting as an extension of any political party’s war room — when we proactively self-censor — we do our readers and listeners a grave disservice. We work for them, after all.

Rumours may be just rumours. But with Justin Trudeau, as we have seen, oftentimes the rumours turn out to be the truth.


Comments (29)

Random, contextless links about #elxn43 and #cdnpoli and punk rock

— 10.01.2019 06:53 AM

So.  First day of October.  Here’s bits and pieces, this and that:




Comments (33)

Trump and Trudeau: brothers of another mother

— 09.27.2019 06:44 AM

Trump and Trudeau: They’re not that different, really.

Sons of millionaires. Never had to worry about a hydro bill, never needed to fret about a mortgage payment. Never experienced the pocketbook terror that is everyday existence for lesser mortals.

Bodyguards, maids, chauffeurs, private jets: These were the emblems of the lives that Trudeau and Trump led and lead. They breathed the same rarefied air as other millionaires and billionaires. They got invited to all the right parties. We in the media hung on their every utterance, stupidly believing that being born rich renders someone worth listening to.

No military service for either. No involvement in government before they both somehow seized the top job. No known ideas or policies. But models, yes. Lots.

And famous. Trump became famous for The Apprentice, and for his expert manipulation of New York City’s viciously competitive media. He’s the assignment editor for all journalists, and he bragged about it in his various ghosted books. Said he in The Art of the Deal: “Most reporters, I find, have very little interest in exploring the substance of a detailed proposal for a development. They look instead for the sensational angle.”

Trudeau gets that, too. He became famous because of the sensational eulogy he gave to his father — the one that his pal, Gerald Butts, told everyone that he wrote — and he became even more famous when he sensationally beat up an indigenous man.

He actually bragged about that. Trudeau actually crowed that he consciously targeted an indigenous man for a public beating. Said Trudeau to Rolling Stone: “I wanted someone who would be a good foil, and we stumbled upon the scrappy, tough-guy senator from an indigenous community. He fit the bill. I saw it as the right kind of narrative, the right story to tell.”

So: Rich, privileged, famous. There’s a reason why Trump and Trudeau have mostly gotten along so well: They both are charter members of the lucky sperm club.

But there is one characteristic that they share above all others. There is one thing, in government and out, that makes them brothers of another mother.

They believe the rules don’t apply to them.

This week, Trump reminded us of that. This week, we learned that he really, truly had called the newly minted president of Ukraine, and requested, seven times, that Ukraine investigate a U.S. citizen, one Joe Biden. Conservatives may not regard that as a “high crime,” but it sure as hell is at least a “misdemeanour” — and, therefore, an impeachable offence.

And how did we get the evidence that Democrats are now relying upon to impeach Trump? Well, they got it from Trump himself. He provided his political executioners with the rope they needed to fashion a noose.

Because he doesn’t think the law should apply to him.

Ditto Trudeau. He can brag about beating up someone who is indigenous (Patrick Brazeau), he can try and destroy an indigenous woman who refused to break the law for him (Jody Wilson-Raybould), he can wear racist blackface to mock others (black Canadians) — and then brazenly claim he isn’t racist.

(Oh, and he and his cabal can come up with a racist name for NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh, too. More on that in my next column.)

Trudeau can do all those racist things, and then insist he believes in tolerance and diversity. Which is standard operating procedure for someone who believes the rules don’t apply to him.

Only one thing differentiates the two leaders right now: Donald Trump is facing impeachment for his sins, and Justin Trudeau isn’t.

Shame, that.


Comments (34)

My latest: in a campaign about nothing positive, don’t give them something negative

— 09.23.2019 09:18 AM

The land is strong.

Sound familiar? Remember that?

The old-timers do. It was an actual slogan that was deployed in the 1972 federal election campaign. Didn’t work out too well.

In yesterday walks tomorrow, they say, and that is certainly true when one compares 1972 to 2019. The similarities are striking.

• In 1972, a Trudeau led the Liberal Party, as in 2019.
• It was a Liberal majority government seeking another majority, as now.
• Back in 1972, as in 2019, the Conservatives were led by a kind of boring, bland guy who everyone underestimated.
• The Liberals’ 1972 slogan, “the land is strong,” sucked. So does the Liberals’ 2019 slogan, “Choose Forward.” It’s ungrammatical and uninspiring.

But the Justin Trudeau folks are wedded to their crummy slogan, just like Justin’s Dad was to his. Everywhere Trudeau the Younger goes, he robotically repeats the “choose forward” mantra, and no one knows exactly what it means.

That’s never a good idea, politically but it’s potential lethal when a scandal hits – like the blackface scandal. When you have no positive message, it makes it easier for a negative message to take its place. And blackface has.

Is an election won or lost on a slogan? Of course not. But a good one should give voters a pithy idea about what is on offer. Like, you know, “Melts in your mouth, not in your hands.” Or: “Just Do It.” Or: “The Quicker Picker Upper.”

The big problem with “choose forward” is that it actually reminds voters about Justin Trudeau’s biggest problem. Which isn’t LavScam, or the Aga Khan, or Gropegate.

It’s that he hasn’t done what he said he was going to do. And he hasn’t done much at all, really.

Let’s crack open the history book again.

From 1968 to 1972, when his Dad was Prime Minister and enjoying a strong parliamentary majority, lots of things were done: the Just Society, universal health care, regional development, parliamentary reform, bilingualism, multiculturalism, pro-NATOism, multilateralism, staring down separatism and terrorism.

When you examine the elder Trudeau’s first majority term – and whether you respected him or not, and this writer really did – it is remarkable how much was accomplished in a relatively short period of time.
But, despite all that, Pierre Trudeau was still reduced to a minority in 1972.

His son, meanwhile, doesn’t have much to brag about, legislatively. Legalization of cannabis, and … that’s it.

History will not remember Justin Trudeau for lots of important legislative achievements, because there haven’t been any. It’s been a lot of social media sizzle, but not much policy steak.

Broken promises and voter disappointments: they’re not predicaments unknown to incumbent governments, true.
But, if there’s enough of them, they’re why those governments get defeated.

And, at this point, Justin Trudeau isn’t known for any achievements at all. He’s known for being a racist, and wearing blackface.

Pierre Trudeau wasn’t defeated in 1972. But, despite a lot of legislative achievements, he almost was. He, the Northern Magus, lost his Parliamentary majority to the efforts of Bob Stanfield – who, like Andrew Scheer, was regularly mocked and maligned.

“Choose Forward” strongly implies that what preceded it wasn’t all that great. In Justin Trudeau’s case, he wants us to think of mean old Stephen Harper when we think about that past.

But what if voters start thinking about the more-recent past – and what, if anything, Justin Trudeau has achieved?

He hasn’t achieved much. There’s a reason why Justin Trudeau is less popular than Donald Trump, you know.

The land is strong? When compared to something like “choose forward,” the 1972 Liberal campaign slogan is practically a detailed 100-page policy platform.

Canadians are going to “choose,” alright.

Based upon his paltry, puny legislative record – based on his racist blackface stunts – Justin Trudeau may deeply regret asking Canadians to do so.


Comments (43)