Canadian Politics Today

as I said, pure speculation pulled out of your azz! If you're not speculating, surely you can state why a plea-bargain agreement was struck... you can state why the PPSC reversed itself and stayed all but one of the many charges it had brought against SNC-L. It's heeelarious to read you attempting to leverage the result (plea bargain) outcome for your self-serving agenda...

in any case, the problem with your revisionism is the waldo won't let it stand. Your "ethics" tag is simply you showcasing, once again, how willing you are to blindly accept St. Jody's "truth"... notwithstanding the numerous ethical breaches that JWR actually made - as in, for example, refusing to appear before the Senate Committee, refusing to properly allow information flow between departments, refusing to provide information to the Privy Clerk (hence cabinet)... and, of course, blatantly recording the Privy Clerk without his knowledge! St. Jody indeed 

as you said, baseless speculation pulled out of YOUR AZZ!

No.  If I had written that before the plea agreement was reached, it would have been baseless speculation. But since I wrote it after the plea agreement was reached, it's merely remarking upon an observable fact:
 * AG Lametti says that the government was not involved in reaching the plea agreement between SNC and the public prosecution.
 * An agreement has been reached that all parties consider equitable.
THEREFORE: government involvement was not required to reach an equitable deal.

The Prime Minister himself said that if he'd known things would work out this well, he'd have acted much differently.

again, I'm quite enjoying seeing you unable to actually reply to the thread topic at hand...

your deflect/distract routine doesn't explain what would push PPSC into a plea-bargain. If PPSC had the TheCase, had TheGoods, what conceivably could bring the plea-bargain forward, particularly in such a high-profile proceeding. Wait, what's that waldo... the plea-bargain was offered by PPSC the very day before SNC-L was to make its second submission in regards the "Abuse Of Process" proceeding. You know, the abuse of process that came to light as a part of the Justice Committee testimonies. Is that what caused PPSC to 'turn tail & run', hey member kimmy?  Timing is just so coincidental - yes?

We now know how the case ended, and clearly SNC Lavalin has not gone up in flames in spite of failing to obtain a DPA.  They have not relocated, they have not received "the death penalty" of being barred from government contracts for 10 years, they have not laid off 9000 employees or however many it was that Gerald Butts told us would lose their jobs if the prosecution continued.

First and foremost the outcome of all of this is proof that the PMO interference in the prosecution was completely unnecessary.  Trying to spin it as vindication for the PMO's shenanigans is absurd.

And, of course, nobody really thought 9000 people would lose their jobs.  Even the worst case was just some empty office space in Papineau. Those government contracts would continue without SNC, and the companies that won those contracts would need workers and suppliers.

What this was really about was Quebec votes.  "We can have the best policy in the world, but we need to be re-elected,"  as PMO henchman Mathieu Bouchard put it. He said out loud the part you're supposed to not say out loud.

member wilber - lighten up; you're too sensitive! As for the/my reply you speak of, I'll take any opportunity to take a dig at member squiggy's incessant dumbTag post assignments. And yes, it absolutely is trolling as the dumbTags are attached, repeatedly, without the member ever posting any verbiage... it's just an azzholey trolling move; one that other members have commented on... have taken exception to!

clearly, you don't know what you're talking about. The unsettled impact on operations and investor confidence was significant - profit forecasts were revised 3 times in 2019; there was division restructuring and the judicial targeted construction division effectively stopped bidding on new contracts. Most certainly being banned from bidding on federal contracts would have had an impact on jobs. As a renowned international company, the option to shift 'some degree of operations' elsewhere was there... if the contract bid ban was impacting enough. It is somewhat telling that the plea-bargain ensures that SNC-L won't be banned from contract bidding... now why would PPSC include that lil' nugget, hey member kimmy?

talk about YOUR SPIN! Wildly spinning the PPSC offered plea-bargain into your implication that "no undue pressure towards St. Jody" was warranted! 

I'll cut you some slack as its clear your limited job exposure/experience... your widget making cubicle world... hasn't given you an appreciation of what it might have meant for thousands of SNC-L employees to lose their jobs. To simply say that those employees could just get jobs with other bidding companies, shows you have no real grounding in the realities of large corporations operations and workforce management... notwithstanding said jobs could be hundreds-to-thousands of miles away. No biggee, hey member kimmy!