Author Topic: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal  (Read 38342 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Queefer Sutherland

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10186
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #465 on: March 02, 2019, 08:06:33 pm »
Then why does the law *explicitly state* that "national economic interest" must *not* be considered?

https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-179.html

If JWR had followed the agenda of the PMO and considered "national economic interest" for this particular DPA (SNC-L &/or headquarters may leave Canada if blocked for 10 yrs from gov contracts), then wouldn't she have been doing something unlawful?
"Nipples is one of the great minds of our time!" - Bubbermiley

Offline TimG

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2616
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #466 on: March 02, 2019, 09:27:31 pm »
If JWR had followed the agenda of the PMO and considered "national economic interest" for this particular DPA (SNC-L &/or headquarters may leave Canada if blocked for 10 yrs from gov contracts), then wouldn't she have been doing something unlawful?
One would assume so but the law is contradictory since one could argue the DPA was to "to reduce the negative consequences of the wrongdoing for persons — employees, customers, pensioners and others — who did not engage in the wrongdoing" rather than the "national interest". But of course, the arguments given to JWR were entirely driven from a desire to get votes for the Liberal party.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

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

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 510
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #467 on: March 02, 2019, 09:36:05 pm »
yours is an ignorant/stupid comment; notwithstanding (if one accepts your count) budgetary value/worth/interest... based upon, "the number of pages"!  ;D

Do not ever conclude the Waldo is a great debater, and know how to win friends and influence people.
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 #468 on: March 02, 2019, 11:24:40 pm »
Do not ever conclude the Waldo is a great debater, and know how to win friends and influence people.

I take no solace in continually burning you - you're an easy mark!

protip: rather than spending all your time following me around, extend yourself a bit - try to actually post something related to the thread topic.
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #469 on: March 02, 2019, 11:32:53 pm »
Irrelevant to TimG’s point...   political interference is not allowed by law.

A judge should decide on the legality, in my opinion.

wait, what? I thought the chief law officer for the Crown... and the chief federal legal adviser... stated there were NO illegalities. Who are they... er, who is it - hey?
Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline Omni

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8563
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #470 on: March 02, 2019, 11:59:24 pm »
wait, what? I thought the chief law officer for the Crown... and the chief federal legal adviser... stated there were NO illegalities. Who are they... er, who is it - hey?

Yep, if you listened to her testimony you quite clearly heard her respond there was nothing illegal with regard to any pressure which may have been placed upon her as far as the NSC/L case.

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #471 on: March 03, 2019, 12:28:24 am »
Then why does the law *explicitly state* that "national economic interest" must *not* be considered? https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-179.html

depending on the company, would you accept that efforts to attempt to protect jobs across Canada, to attempt to ensure the viability of the company, to attempt to keep the company based in Canada, etc.,... that all those efforts could be considered actions/pursuits undertaken in the public interest - and that considering to entertain a DPA negotiation with that company could be construed as, similarly, in the public interest? If not, why not?

More importantly, if a corporation knows it will not be charged because it has bribedpersuaded a sufficient number of Liberal party officials to overrule the prosecutor then it has no incentive to accept anything other than the minimum needed to comply with the law. i.e. proverbial slap on the wrist.

good on ya for self-correcting your improper use of the word bribed. Since you've targeted the Liberal party in your post, please allow me to assume you're referring to SNC-Lavalin as your implied "persuader". What do you envision constitutes the nature of your implied "persuasion"?

notwithstanding DPAs have a principal aim to allow companies to self-disclose their "wrong doings" (that may never be known without self-disclosure), for those company's 'caught' before self-disclosure, sufficient equivalencies to extend beyond your described "minimums" are needed. As I read/interpret, practical extensions beyond minimal statutory requirements have been formalized in both U.S. & UK deployments of DPA legislation - no biggee/SOP! As I interpret, pre-and-post remediation efforts undertaken by companies, upon evaluation, might qualify as mitigating circumstance in determining "sentencing". Of course, for some reason you seem to overlook the fact negotiated DPAs are subject to judicial review and court authorization... you did know that, right?

speaking of SNC-Lavalin, as I've noted previously, the company has undertaken significant efforts towards remediation. You may choose to accept/respect the following SNC-Lavalin authored summary - or not; note: this is an extract from a formal SNC-Lavalin response to their notification a DPA would not be considered. Perhaps you might choose to offer your personal interpretation and evaluation of the following - yes?



Dumb Dumb x 1 View List

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #472 on: March 03, 2019, 11:10:13 am »
I'm sure JWR or any AG would have written "The reasons for the deferral include lost jobs, a willingness for the federal and provincial Liberals not to lose upcoming elections, and sustained lobbying efforts by the accused corporation whose officials have donated large sums of funding to the Liberal Party."

So no I don't want a "do-over".

No speculation about donations (or kickbacks or the contents of peoples' stock portfolios or anything else) is necessary.  The motive is obvious, and JWR told us what it was on Wednesday.  She stated in her testimony that both PM Trudeau and PMO Quebec strategist Mathieu Bouchard told her that the needed her to drop the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin due to political considerations in Quebec.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #473 on: March 03, 2019, 11:18:56 am »
It seems that JWR was unwilling to answer at committee or before the senate when she was AG whether or not she even supported the existence of DPAs - if she was in contradiction with legal government policy and was unwilling to implement it, it was incumbent on her to resign.

She declined to answer that question because it was irrelevant.

Her opinion of the deferred prosecution agreement legislation in general isn't at issue.  At issue is her refusal to interfere in a specific criminal case. 

You still don't actually get why crown prosecution is supposed to be arms length from political direction, do you.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #474 on: March 03, 2019, 11:46:40 am »
I've not seen/heard her express 'rationale' for resigning... not in her public released letter of resignation; not throughout her testimony before the Justice Committee. You say, 'she gave a rationale' - please, if you're able, provide citation support to that end... thanks in advance.

From her testimony:
Quote
Randy Boissonnault, the Liberal MP who earlier this month accused opposition parties of being on a witch hunt, asks Wilson-Raybould if she has confidence in the PM. She replies she resigned cabinet "because I did not have confidence to sit around the cabinet table."

https://twitter.com/stevenchase/status/1100892073937514497


and yet you have no qualms in repeatedly speaking to a "demotion". As you now openly state, you're not factoring anything else into why she might have been moved to other roles; you're not factoring the merits of her job performance and, I expect, you're not factoring her working relationships and the expressions of her work colleagues that speak to her as 'difficult', 'not-open', 'inflexible', etc.. Nor, I expect, are you factoring her formalized mandate... if you're not aware, all Ministers received mandates in terms of expected work/accomplishments they were to meet - a mandate she most certainly came no where close to meeting.

This laundry list of reasons-- anonymous whispers about her personality, alleged dissatisfaction with her work, "hey, maybe it's because she doesn't speak French", "she'd still be Justice minister if Scott Brison hadn't resigned," etc-- have the air of post-hoc rationalizing, or butt-covering.

At this point only those who are drowning in the party Kool-Aid would believe that the SNC-Lavalin situation wasn't the reason she got removed as AG.
Quote
The next day, she had a phone call with Wernick. “The Clerk said that the PM is quite determined, quite firm, he wants to know why the (deferred prosecution) route which Parliament provided for isn’t being used,” Wilson-Raybould said. “He said ‘I think he is gonna find a way to get it done one way or another. So, he is in that kinda mood and I wanted you to be aware of that.’”
Clearly he found a way.

I'll repeat the same point I've made to you previously (I believe this is now the 3rd time I'm stating it): the DPPSC decision was one that, in itself, over-ruled that of the lead-prosecutor. More pointedly, until court proceedings commence, that decision is not binding and is open to change. You prefer to speak to "interference for political reasons" - versus initiatives to bring new information, new contextual analysis, new factors/influences, etc, forward to bring consideration towards reevaluating the initial decision. Essentially, as I've also previously stated to you, your want is to keep steadfast to a decision that, many suggest, is not in the public interest - not in the public interest when 9000 Canadian jobs might be in jeopardy, when the company might move its base of operations to another country, when the actual viability of the company itself could be at risk (particularly in regards a weakened position subject to takeover).

So what "new information, new contextual analysis, new factors/influences, etc" did they actually bring forth between September 6 and December 19?  What changed in the course of those 4 months?   Based on the testimony we have, the only new information presented to her during that time was that Prime Minister Trudeau had become increasingly frustrated.

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #475 on: March 03, 2019, 11:53:04 am »
She stated in her testimony that both PM Trudeau and PMO Quebec strategist Mathieu Bouchard told her...

- during her Justice Committee testimony, in response to repeated questioning, JWR acknowledged no one, NO ONE, directed her to change the PPSC decision against a DPA.

- Clerk of the Privy Council offered testimony stating JWR was not directed... that there was no inappropriate pressure on JWR

- PM Trudeau has stated that neither he or anyone from his office directed JWR


hey now, here's another word for you to add to your growing list of descriptors: you've gone from using "pressuring", to using "badgering", to using "pleading". The word "hounding" has popped up in recent ConMedia articles... please add the word "hounding" to your descriptors grouping!

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #476 on: March 03, 2019, 11:59:42 am »
- during her Justice Committee testimony, in response to repeated questioning, JWR acknowledged no one, NO ONE, directed her to change the PPSC decision against a DPA.

- Clerk of the Privy Council offered testimony stating JWR was not directed... that there was no inappropriate pressure on JWR

- PM Trudeau has stated that neither he or anyone from his office directed JWR


hey now, here's another word for you to add to your growing list of descriptors: you've gone from using "pressuring", to using "badgering", to using "pleading". The word "hounding" has popped up in recent ConMedia articles... please add the word "hounding" to your descriptors grouping!

We don't need those anymore, we now have "a consistent and sustained effort... to politically interfere."

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline waldo

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 8715
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #477 on: March 03, 2019, 12:00:17 pm »
She declined to answer that question because it was irrelevant.

Her opinion of the deferred prosecution agreement legislation in general isn't at issue.  At issue is her refusal to interfere in a specific criminal case.
no - of course it's relevant... as stated previously!

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.

You still don't actually get why crown prosecution is supposed to be arms length from political direction, do you.

again, no direction was given. And now, yet another of your own-goals!!! Who/What department do you understand to be, as you say, "crown prosecution"?  :o

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #478 on: March 03, 2019, 12:06:49 pm »
no - of course it's relevant... as stated previously!
 
again, no direction was given. And now, yet another of your own-goals!!! Who/What department do you understand to be, as you say, "crown prosecution"?  :o

"We didn't tell her what to do.  We just fired her because she didn't do what we'd decided on. It's totally different!"

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline JMT

  • Administrator
  • Full Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3462
  • Location: Waterhen, Manitoba
Re: Trudeau accused in SNC-Lavalin scandal
« Reply #479 on: March 03, 2019, 12:19:26 pm »
She declined to answer that question because it was irrelevant.

Her opinion of the deferred prosecution agreement legislation in general isn't at issue.  At issue is her refusal to interfere in a specific criminal case. 

Of course it's relevant - as a Minister, she is required to defend the decisions of the government, and carry out legislation whether or not she agrees with it.  Her inability to say whether or not she would ever support the use of DPAs is a problem.

Quote
You still don't actually get why crown prosecution is supposed to be arms length from political direction, do you.

Bringing that up is interesting, as the Crown wanted to go with a DPA and was overruled by the DPP.