Author Topic: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal  (Read 33199 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 7001
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #1905 on: January 14, 2020, 04:24:25 am »
You're quite the POS yourself!   Yes, like many Canadians, especially women, who weren't born into wealth, I've worked with the mighty Squirrel in the past.  That you see this as something worthy of mockery suggests that you, like your blackface-wearing idol, perhaps "come from a place of privilege" that "comes with a massive blind spot".

do you feel mocked? Highlighting a significant facet of your employment history is simply a reference point to gauge the merit/basis of the strength naivete of your statements concerning job loss, impacts on livelihood, the practicalities of hundreds-to-thousand kilometer relocations, etc..

Phasing out 5200 more jobs doesn't seem like that big of a threat after they've already phased out 11500 since 2013.

purrrfect... you being one of the St. Jody truthTellers who scoffed at the various possible future job loss numbers being speculated on... but you're somehow accepting to SNC's own actual past job loss numbers that reflect upon internal remediation and restructuring efforts and their related financial impacts, notwithstanding losses related to investor uncertainty and the shuttering of their principal construction division. I'd call this yet another member kimmy "own-goal"!

My family has moved around the country for work numerous times, I moved myself, I've changed employment numerous times. Why should I care that other people have to as well?  This is a fact of life for many Canadians.

who cares if you care? Again, your naivete... and callousness simply reflects on your limited corporate attached job history - squirrelOn, hey!

The "nature and gravity" of the crime disqualify them from a DPA.  As well, SNC is a repeat offender, that also disqualifies them from a DPA. Ms Roussel's decision is completely justifiable.

no - your absolute "disqualifies" is not accurate; rather its just another discretionary decision factor to weigh within the greater whole (of a dozen plus other factors to consider):
=> whether the organization  or any of its representatives  was convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body, or whether it entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement, in Canada or elsewhere, for similar conduct;
=> whether the organization  or any of its representatives  is alleged to have committed any other offences;

That the eventual plea agreement resulted in a settlement similar to what a DPA might have provided doesn't actually mean that SNC was ever eligible for a DPA.

never said it did! Point in fact, the plea-agreement is said to have realized LESS than what a offered/negotiated DPA was anticipated to realize.