Canadian Politics Today

Perhaps you forgot the $13.7 billion your buddy Harper gave to GM. It's all about jobs, and I think we are getting bored with continious flogging a dead horse. But carry on.

SNC being banned from bidding on government contracts would have just meant that other firms win the bids instead.  The talented professionals of SNC would have found work at other firms. People change jobs all the time. Companies fold or relocate all the time. The impact of SNC moving its headquarters from Montreal was never a significant issue for the national economy. The impact of SNC moving its headquarters on Montreal-area Liberal MPs was the real threat they were trying to stave off.  Can't give the BQ more ammo!

Not only was undue pressure on JWR not warranted, it was also unethical, and as this result proves: completely unnecessary!   A fair agreement was reached that punishes SNC Lavalin while allowing them to continue as a viable enterprise, all without direction from AG Lametti.    All the PMO got from meddling in the prosecution of this affair was egg on its face.

ok, I've let you have enough rope now! 

Notwithstanding I've never offered comment on whether there was 'ACase', how are you expecting anyone from the general public to know just 'WhatCase' the PPSC had... or didn't have? As I recall, the only thing I've stated is that legal analysts suggested PPSC might have difficulty in proving... WhateverCaseTheyMightHave! And why? As I stated, because of the datedness of the alleged crimes, the foreign element, the death/absence of many of the key players {allegedly} involved, etc..

what I've also stated, several times, is that the Director of PPSC was quite emphatic in stipulating the key reason behind her decision not to offer a DPA - as she stated, her principal reason for not offering a DPA to SNC-L was due to the, “nature and gravity” of SNC-Lavalin‘s alleged corruption in Libya. That's quite precise... specific... defined! It reads like the PPSC sure envisioned they had TheGoods to support conviction - must have been quite TheCase to render said decision, hey member kimmy?

what you can't answer, what you keep deflecting away from, is the simple question: if PPSC had TheGoods, had TheCase, why did it withdraw all 6 charges of fraud and corruption (3 and 3), and instead had SNC-Lavalin accept a guilty plea on one charge of fraud over $5000? If only you could focus and offer an answer - if only! 

Of course, as you're also clearly unaware, a typical key stipulation of DPA's has a defendant admit quilt and assist prosecution in providing all manner of available information to align with and prove/support said guilt!

While you go about patting yourself on the back for some feat of cleverness you imagine yourself to have performed, I have to once again point out that you've yet again failed to address the fundamental question of why SNC accepted this plea agreement.

Notwithstanding I've never offered comment on whether there was 'ACase', how are you expecting anyone from the general public to know just 'WhatCase' the PPSC had... or didn't have? As I recall, the only thing I've stated is that legal analysts suggested PPSC might have difficulty in proving... WhateverCaseTheyMightHave! And why? As I stated, because of the datedness of the alleged crimes, the foreign element, the death/absence of many of the key players {allegedly} involved, etc..

Gee, you make it sound like it would have been pretty easy of SNC to beat these charges in court! Why did SNC decide to plead guilty instead of just beating the charges in court?

SNC's lawyers are in a better position to evaluate the strength of the prosecution's case than anybody in the general public, or any outside legal analysts you care to cite.  The fact that SNC opted to plead guilty should tell you what you need to know about the prosecution's case.

As I said previously, dropping some charges and/or agreeing to a lesser sentence is a common feature of a plea agreement. I'm not sure why this is so mystifying to you.

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..

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"!

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

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;

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.