Author Topic: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal  (Read 38371 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #405 on: March 01, 2019, 10:38:49 am »
Peter Mackay should come out of retirement and lead the Tories to victory.

Yes, with David Orchard, MacKay showed far more ethics and honesty than the current PM  ::)
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #406 on: March 01, 2019, 11:14:00 am »
He wanted to undermine the independence of the the AG and insert Liberal election chances into judicial decisions, and when he couldn't, he found one who would bend to his will.  Yes there's a malevolence to that.  Sure he can swap ministers, doesn't mean the reasoning is ethical.

Except she didn't bend to his will and that is likely why she's not AG anymore.
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline Pinus or Vid or...?????

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #407 on: March 01, 2019, 11:45:49 am »
Yes, with David Orchard, MacKay showed far more ethics and honesty than the current PM  ::)

Not familiar what you are taking about. Can you elaborate?
« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 02:08:16 pm by Pinus »
If Omni, Impact, and the_squid ever had a love child, I would be him

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #408 on: March 01, 2019, 12:34:00 pm »
No idea what you are taking about. Can you elaborate?

(and who says complaining about thread drift... causes thread drift?)
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #409 on: March 01, 2019, 12:51:37 pm »
there is an ever growing sense/suspicion that JWR may herself be the anonymous source for the Robert Fife/G&M story that kicked all this off.

I am guessing her father was the anonymous source. I heard him talk about the situation a week or so ago, and then he wrapped it up by suggesting that the switch was a demotion because she would not be able to reap the same financial rewards as before. What a scoundrel.

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #410 on: March 01, 2019, 12:56:20 pm »
actually, the Liberal government brought forward the DPA legislation... that was passed into (criminal code) law. Nothing was hidden:
...

Yes, there was consultation beforehand, but putting it in an omnibus budget bill significantly lessens its chance for proper debate in Parliament. While Sheer and all Conservatives are hypocrites to suggest that, they are the worst offenders by an order of magnitude, I have been speaking out against this practice for a long time.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #411 on: March 01, 2019, 01:07:49 pm »
I am guessing her father was the anonymous source. I heard him talk about the situation a week or so ago, and then he wrapped it up by suggesting that the switch was a demotion because she would not be able to reap the same financial rewards as before. What a scoundrel.

notwithstanding his long-standing FN activism... notwithstanding he's quite 'miffed' at the current pace/direction of reconciliation... notwithstanding his long-standing expressed 'concerns' with another father - Pierre!
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #412 on: March 01, 2019, 01:17:06 pm »
Yes, there was consultation beforehand, but putting it in an omnibus budget bill significantly lessens its chance for proper debate in Parliament. While Sheer and all Conservatives are hypocrites to suggest that, they are the worst offenders by an order of magnitude, I have been speaking out against this practice for a long time.

agreed - better outside a 'budget bill'. In any case, I won't bother to try to find JWR's testimony answer, instead paraphrasing from recall: JWR was asked why the DPA legislation ended up in the budget bill - she answered something along the lines of, "the Minister of Finance, the Finance Department, had close interest & engagement in the ultimate makeup of the DPA bill/legislation"... seems 'weak' but my comments were keyed more to the persistent claims that "it was hidden". As I said, that's countered somewhat in the face of the related most significant public consultations and the rigorous Senate Committee review. Notwithstanding, as I mentioned earlier, JWR's refusal to appear directly before the Senate Committee hearings!

Offline Rue

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 835
  • The beast feeds on fear - I feast on the beast.
  • Location: inside a matrix
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #413 on: March 01, 2019, 01:34:06 pm »
actually, the Liberal government brought forward the DPA legislation... that was passed into (criminal code) law. Nothing was hidden:

=> there were formal consultations leading up to the bill; consultations which drew 370 participants (370 Canadians, industry associations, businesses, non-governmental organizations and others participated.), and 75 written submissions - all public record.

=> members of the House had opportunity to scrutinize the DPA related provisions within the bill - note: the government of the day isn't responsible for doing the Opposition parties due diligence.

=> there was extensive review of the bill provisions at a Senate committee level - all public record

as an aside: during her recent testimony before the Justice Committee, JWR was asked several times for her personal view on remediation agreements (DPAs) - she refused to answer, advising that her personal view is irrelevant. A most curious/interesting response given: Wilson-Raybould snubbed Senate committee on corporate corruption bill


Provide the citations for the public record as to the debates  and  discussion as to  the clause added to the omnibus bill to add on the dpa the Liberals slipped in. Good luck. It does not exist. As for the alleged discussions you said took place, they were not about the Lavalin dpa. You also did not understand why JWR said her personal opinion about dpa's was not relevant. It has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

Look with due respect I am trying to take the time to explain the actual law and how it works exactly as JWR did and any lawyer will not to be a **** with you. Its hard to explain it in short black and white terms but you must believe me when I say  what JWR said is something all lawyers are obliged to know and understand and I will try explain it again making it clear that  JWR acted on behalf of not just the AG as she was supposed to  but as all lawyers are expected to do and  uphold both ethically and legally as she did. She is a classic role model for what we were taught to do or must do. She is an example of an ethical lawyer. They do exist.

Please let’s get it straight. It was on September 19th, 2018 the Criminal Code of Canada was  altered to allow for a specific deferred prosecution agreement buried in a clause allowing DPA’s in a last-minute addition to a 582-page Omnibus Budget Bill that was passed.  There was no debate on it.

In actual fact the Liberals did not discuss the DPA clause specific to Lavalin  but kept it secret because even the Liberal MP’s on the House of Commons justice committee studying the Omnibus Budget Bill said they were surprised and did not know about this clause. It is also a fact Liberal MP Greg Fergus said at the time when he became aware of the clause he was worried the change appeared to be designed to give those implicated in white-collar crimes “a little slap on the wrist”. He stated:
“It seems we’re letting those with the means have an easier time of it than those who don’t have the means,”.

In fact the discussion about dpa’s you refer to was not as to the dpa for Lavalin but dpa’s in general which is not the issue, please go  to:https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ci-if/ar-cw/differee-deferred-eng.html .

Also to be clear the issue at hand  is not the use of dpa’s but in fact using a dpa for Lavalin which is predicated on the belief that it should get favourable treatment. Dpa's can be of benefit of they in fact provide alternatives to traditional sentencing that serve the purposes of s.718 of the Criminal Code and do not undermine the criminal sentencing process by lending to the appearance of giving special lenient treatment which is what Lavalin asked for.

Public interest is NOT in the Lavalin case one and the same as favourable treatment for Lavalin when Lavalin commits a crime. That I would politely caution you  is not possible in law. Law does not consider criminals less criminal and entitled to less of a sentence because they might suffer financially and that in turn may cause people to lose jobs in Quebec which in turn would cause political fallout for Trudeau. No it is not in the public interest to protect criminals who employ people because if  that was the case any criminal who employs people who could cause those people a loss of jobs if they are sentenced, would be entitled to the same treatment as Lavalin. Imagine what that would do to the entire legal process. . It would undermine not only the entire criminal process but the need to protect people from criminals.

 If this Lavalin  dpa  is allowed we are to believe  the need for specific Quebecers employed by Lavalin to continue working for Lavalin is more important than upholding  social values that the need to prevent criminals including  Lavalin from committing crimes they did.

How could that possibly be in the public interest? Trudeau et al would have us suspend logic, common sense, and basic fundamental criminal laws and sentencing principles and purposes as well as ethics because it conflicts with his partisan Liberal political need to avoid negative fall out that could prevent him from being re-elected. No. That of course incorrect.

I also want to remind you this dpa would not only lighten the sentence but allow Lavalin to continue to be awarded contracts by our federal government. Why? Why are we protecting a company that engages in corruption and bribery with people like Ghaddafi? Has our legal system become so subservient to large corporations we  have a PM who relishes the role of serving as a step and fetch it for a criminal company?

Let’s be clear what this is all about. SNC-Lavalin is supposed to be under trial for fraud and corruption charges for its role in bribing Libyan officials under the Muammar Gaddafi regime as well as defrauding Libyan organizations in the amount of $130 million. If criminally convicted without the dpa for corruption, SNC-Lavalin would be barred from bidding on federal contracts for the next 10 years –  and it is this potentially loss of business which causes the fear by this current Liberal government that such a ban could cause SNC to lose jobs or move out of Quebec and thus the dpa to lessen the sentence.
 
So the dpa has nothing to do with a sentence proportionate to the crime which is the most basic and fundamental of sentencing principles in Canadian criminal law but introduces the concept that if a criminal is a corporation that is large and employs people that might lose their jobs, this allows that criminal special treatment. Its got nothing to do with the crime and protecting the public from the crime but everything to do with protecting the ruling government from potential negative political fallout if the proper sentence was upheld.

In fact SNC Lavalin began its non stop lobbying and over 80 meetings to influence the ruling government to issue a dpa starting in 2016. Most of the lobbying was done with includes  Finance Minister Bill (Fred Astaire) Morneau, Economic Development Minister Navdeep (Big Boy) Bains, Infrastructure Minister (Frankie) Francois-Philippe, as well as meetings with the PMO, specifically Gerald (Bumbum) Butts as well as other senior advisers (minions) to Justin Trudeau.

The new bill allows dpa’s as an option. It says a dpa can be considered instead of pursuing (continuing with a criminal court case). However and this is the crucial element to this dpa amendment, its not an automatic device that MUST be used. It still requires the Director of the Public Prosecution Service to decide whether it would be appropriate to use. Let’s also be clear. We don’t need dpa’s. A prosecutor already has the discretion to plea bargain or not pursue a case. They don’t need a dpa and never did. The problem is precisely what I said, if the prosecutor plea bargains, the final say as to the actual sentence rests with a Judge which Lavalin did not want.

Let us also be crystal clear, the Director of Public Prosecution on Oct.18, 2018 refused to negotiate a dpa with Lavalin saying it was NOT  in the public interest and when that news came out Lavalin stock value dropped 14% that same day. Since that time and as far back as 2015, Lavalin has ben lobbying the federal government not to prosecute it.

We also need to be clear, when the Director refused to implement a dpa for Lavalin on Oct.18 2018, Lavalin filed a judicial review challenging this rejection which is still before the court and has not been decided.

Since the firing of the AG for not agreeing to the dpa, her replacement has now said he may force prosecutors to negotiate a DPA with SNC-Lavalin, despite protests from the Director of Public Prosecution Service in Canada. This kind of threat to influence and intimidate prosecutors who are supposed to be free of any political interference from elected officials has never been done before. In fact cases to date have made it clear you can not coerce a Crown prosecutor to do things based on concerns or interests unrelated to the crime itself.

This is such a disturbing development in legal terms, that yesterday 5 former Attorney Generals have filed a law suit against the current government and it should also be mentioned Lavalin is involved in a class action suit by its own shareholders who claim they were lied to by Lavalin about the corruption they engaged in and this dpa would necessarily if followed prejudice their case.

What government gets involved in a process where its Prime Minister applauds his own efforts in pressuring the AG and condoning the concept that a criminal should be able to get the government of the day to change the law directly related to its own case so it can get out of its sentence?

How the phack does any Liberal spinner on this thread not see that there is a conflict for the government of the day to allow itself to be pressured by a criminal to pass a law giving that criminal special treatment in its on-going prosecution?


How does a PM who has told China we uphold the rules of law which means the government of the day can not influence on-going criminal proceedings…do this? How does a PM who says believe a woman who says she is harassed now say, do not believe this woman when she says she was harassed, we didn't harass. The fact we kept calling and calling isn't harassment, its not influence peddling, its not coercion, its "normal". No it is not. No one in government is allowed to pressure a prosecutor to consider looking the other way. That is illegal. It could be obstruction of justice or influence peddling which are crimes. If nothing else its inappropriate. Its a clear conflict of interest. Most importantly how does doing something so unethical (allowing a criminal to lobby to get special treatment) become acceptable to Liberals because they try use this absurd argument they made it legal to be unethical?

What kind of logic is that?


Every lawyer in every province and territory of Canada knows that there is a centuries-old tradition that the attorney general's role as the government's chief prosecutor needs to be independent from their  position as a member of the executive branch at the cabinet table an so that it is improper for any other minister to attempt to influence the attorney general in their prosecutorial role.

Imagine what the Liberal spins on this forum would be saying if the Tories had done this and not Liberals. How selective is it for Liberals to now openly advocate for creating laws that allow large corporations to get special criminal treatment. Amazing how the righteousness of Liberals so easily turns to defending corruption and corrupt corporations  when it suits their need to get re-elected.

What two faced **** they are and it did not take long to see Trudeau for what he is a corporate step n fetch it boy.

Yassuh Mistuh Lavalin az a comin to carry yoh bagz massuh.

That sucking and blowing by Trudeau on Lavalin's titties and other parts must by now be painful.







« Last Edit: March 01, 2019, 03:07:07 pm by Rue »
You have me mistaken with an eagle. I only come to eat your carcass.
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline ?Impact

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2941
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #414 on: March 01, 2019, 02:48:11 pm »
Provide the citations where the public record can be found as to the discussion on this road.

https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ci-if/ar-cw/documents/rapport-report-eng.pdf

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10191
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #415 on: March 01, 2019, 08:42:08 pm »
That sucking and blowing by Trudeau on Lavalin's titties and other parts must by now be painful.

Line of the day!  :D
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #416 on: March 01, 2019, 08:48:37 pm »
Line of the day!  :D

Rue tends to get off reducing his comments to body parts trash. Scary stuff!
Agree Agree x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #417 on: March 02, 2019, 02:51:04 am »
Provide the citations for the public record

you mean... could I please provide - yes?

=> Public Consultation
background; consultation particulars:
- About the consultation: Expanding Canada's toolkit to address corporate wrongdoing

- {per member Impact} summary report: Expanding Canada’s toolkit to address corporate wrongdoing: What we heard

=> Senate Review: Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs - Bill C-74 Division 20 of Part 6 (note: non-related to DPA, Div. 15 also included in same meetings, process, review, etc..)
- https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/Committee/421/LCJC/44ev-54092-e
- https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/Committee/421/LCJC/45ev-54117-e
- https://sencanada.ca/en/Content/Sen/Committee/421/LCJC/45ev-54128-e
note: again, the Minister responsible for this related DPA legislation was JWR - Senators tried unsuccessfully to have JWR appear for input/questioning over the 2-week period allotted... resulting in a formal observation point that denotes Senators "displeasure" with JWR's (lack of) participation & response.

You also did not understand why JWR said her personal opinion about dpa's was not relevant. It has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

no - JWR's personal views on the DPA option are most relevant. As Minister of Justice, JWR was responsible for the related bill passages and implementation into the criminal code... notwithstanding, again, her inability/apparent unwillingness to provide input to and answer questions relevant to the related Senate review of the bill particulars. Knowing that personal view (as Minister of Justice), would offer perspective & insight into JWRs AJ positions taken for cases involving the possibility of remediation agreements. On the broader level this is germane to cabinet solidarity and support for the government's mandate and direction. Again, if a Minister is not in agreement with a government position and related legislation... does not support it... political convention holds the Minister should resign.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #418 on: March 02, 2019, 03:28:19 am »
In fact the discussion about dpa’s you refer to was not as to the dpa for Lavalin but dpa’s in general which is not the issue, please go  to:https://www.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ci-if/ar-cw/differee-deferred-eng.html .

Also to be clear the issue at hand  is not the use of dpa’s but in fact using a dpa for Lavalin which is predicated on the belief that it should get favourable treatment. Dpa's can be of benefit of they in fact provide alternatives to traditional sentencing that serve the purposes of s.718 of the Criminal Code and do not undermine the criminal sentencing process by lending to the appearance of giving special lenient treatment which is what Lavalin asked for.

no - (my) references to public consultations and Senate Committee review were, quite obviously, speaking to DPAs in general and review of the related bill provisions... again, quite obviously, nothing to do with any potential case application (vis-a-vis, SNC-Lavalin). But WTF, previously in your post you asked me for a citation to the related public consultations... and you just offer up one yourself! Geezaz man, get it together!!!

general discussion (references) related to DPAs were provided in regards your claim "it was all hidden". On the broader level, you appear to have an unfortunate biased understanding of DPAs, how they can/should be used, their benefits, etc.. They do not, as you imply broadly, undermine the criminal code in lieu of "lenient treatment" (your words); rather, they are a prosecutorial tool option to defer prosecution, alternatively finding, "effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties and to assist in meeting other objectives, including increasing detection and improving compliance and corporate culture".

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #419 on: March 02, 2019, 03:55:54 am »
We don’t need dpa’s. A prosecutor already has the discretion to plea bargain or not pursue a case.

hey now! C'mon Rue... are you channeling JWR here - you know, the view some hold that JWR is against DPAs on principal. If only she would speak directly on this point, hey!   

Let us also be crystal clear, the Director of Public Prosecution on Oct.18, 2018 refused to negotiate a dpa with Lavalin saying it was NOT  in the public interest and when that news came out Lavalin stock value dropped 14% that same day. Since that time and as far back as 2015, Lavalin has ben lobbying the federal government not to prosecute it.

We also need to be clear, when the Director refused to implement a dpa for Lavalin on Oct.18 2018, Lavalin filed a judicial review challenging this rejection which is still before the court and has not been decided.

your (first) timing reference is significantly off: see Sept. 4, 2018 - According to federal court records, director of public prosecutions Kathleen Roussel informs SNC-Lavalin that “that she intended to proceed with a prosecution on bribery and fraud charges

instead of your second timing reference, instead: see Oct. 19, 2018 - SNC-Lavalin formally files a notice of an application for judicial review at federal court, which will attempt to overturn the decision by the director of public prosecutions to reject a remediation agreement.

your turn to cite - please: you emphasize the Director of PPSC (Kathleen Rousell) states, "it {DPA} was not in the public interest". - citation request