Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
cannuck

Trudeau lying about SNC

Recommended Posts

I would like to directly address these comments Mr. Butt stated today that I enumerate.

1-The deferred prosecution has been badly mischaracterized as a get-out-of-jail-free card, instead of a way for companies to make amends while protecting innocent workers, shareholders and pensioners from being harmed.

This is a misleading statement by Butt. This is not about “companies”, it is about SNC Lavalin specifically and it is crucial everyone understand the issue is not about deferred prosecution agreements or whether they can be used, it is about what criteria should be considered if using one in this specific case, and whether the specific elements of the crime and the history of the company requesting it make it a reasonable proposition to consider.

The deferred prosecution agreement as a possible  alternative to plea bargaining or traditional criminal sentencing after a trial was passed into law on September 19, 2018. This law refers to it by the name “remediation agreement”. It can be considered with companies who engaged in “economic” crimes. If allowed it would suspend ongoing or outstanding criminal proceedings. It then would require the company to complete specified undertakings to avoid facing criminal charges and an actual criminal trial. Those undertakings are described as fines, remediation measures, enhanced reporting requirements and allowing independent 3rd party audits and reviews of the company’s compliance procedures.

The theory behind it is to encourage voluntary disclosure of misconduct by corporations for having committed criminal activities that probably would have otherwise not been detected by regulators. Its also supposed to hold an organization accountable for bad behaviour and to deter it from doing this kind of behaviour again.

The previous remediation agreement discussions in 2017 were general and never specific to Lavalin and its situation. When this was passed it was not done with NO open discussion but at the last second inserted in an Omnibus bill to prevent discussion of it. One must therefore ask, if it was business as usual, why did the Minister of Justice in a government Trudeau claimed would be open and transparent and never hide things in omnibus bills do just that and not introduce it and discuss it in Parliament and why was it not discussed on the floor if it was genuine and the Liberals had nothing to hide? Why did they even keep it secret from their own MP’s on the Legal Committee  before they passed it?  

What this amendment says is that to be eligible (not entitled, its not automatic entitlement, you must show cause why you are entitled) for a remediation agreement, the accused can not be a public body, trade union or municipality. It is also  limited to consideration for economic offences, i.e., bribery or fraud, not for crimes of death or bodily injury or would violate the Canadian Competition Act.

For this kind of agreement to be considered BEFORE the prosecutor can enter into negotiations as to the specific conditions of the agreement as it pertains to the specific elements of the case, these conditions must first be met:

1-there is a reasonable prospect of conviction with respect to the offence (appears to apply in this specific Lavalin situation);

2-the conduct in question caused no “serious bodily harm or death or injury to national defence or national security”, and was NOT committed for “the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with a criminal organization or terrorist group; (Lavalin is not considered a criminal organization at this time or a terrorist group, it did bribe as part of its conduct, Mummar Ghadafi who was said to cause serious bodily harm or death or injury to national defence or national security, by killing in his own country thousands of persons who opposed his view, funded terrorist organizations including the bombing of a passenger jet over Scotland and whose groups killed thousands in Chad, Niger, Dahomey, Malawi, Mali, Central African Republic, to name but a few countries);

3-negotiating the agreement must be “in the public interest and appropriate in the circumstances” (the question remains does the fact that people might but not necessarily lose their jobs if Lavalin was convicted (there is zero proof of that) over-ride the the public interest to be protected from the criminal activities of Lavalin as well one has to question whether the circumstances were appropriate for these reasons:

i-The accused lobbied the government 80 times for the DPA-why was someone with a direct vested interest in a specific dpa and part of an on-going criminal proceeding allowed to do this?

ii-The Prime Minister openly stated his concern for intervening and pushing for the DPA was on behalf of the constituents of his riding who might lose jobs-in so admitting this which was again repeated and confirmed by Mr. Butt today, they both acknowledged they knew they had a conflict of interest and it was inappropriate the PM and PMO have anything to do with any discussions as to the DPA because of that conflict; the conflict, was the interest attached to whether the persons in Trudeau’s riding could lose their job versus the need to protect all Canadians from crime and not undermine the neutrality of the court system and have it appear to take into consideration partisan or political concerns as criteria for its implementation.

4. The AG must consent to the negotiation agreement. Ms. Raybould said she made it clear she was against it. Mr. Butt today in effect called her a liar and said he never knew she was against it and yet testimony now shows the Privy Council head and Deputy Justice Minister both knew she was against it and the Privy Council head had told Trudeau this, so how is it Butt did not know? How could he possibly not know Trudeau knew she was against it? Further if Butt did not know she was against it why would he and Trudeau ask for a second opinion? They clearly knew because if they did not know they would have had no need to ask for a second opinion. According to Ms. Raybould the second opinion was told to her to be a political device she could use to cover her own butt if there was controversy over using it. In fact the Privy Council said the same thing as did another PMO official who all said if she was worried about it, get a second opinion. How would they know she was not against it if they thought she was so worried she needed a second opinion?

5. Prosecutors must also consider the circumstances in which the offence was brought to their attention and the attention of their investigative authorities. In this case it means, Lavalin did NOT come to the government voluntarily, they ONLY started asking for one once they were told they would be charged. This kinds of agreements contemplate a remorseful criminal taking initiative before they are told they will be prosecuted.

Next and this is where most lawyers not  just the former AG would not have been comfortable considering a dpa in this case and that is because she would also have to consider:

a-the nature and gravity of this offence (and this includes whether this was a one time offence or part of a pattern of behaviour that keeps repeating) as well as the impact on victims-lets be clear, employees of Lavalin would not constitute victims-victims are people who directly not indirectly were the target of the crime which in this case was and remains Lavalin shareholders, not its employees as well as the public at large. In the case of Lavalin shareholders, the directors and officers knowing the company would be charged, sold their shares of the company before the government announced it would proceed with criminal proceedings meaning they used their insider knowledge to sell their stocks before the values dropped. On the day in late 2015 when it was announced Lavalin would be charged its directors and officers had sold all their shares but the average shareholder not having that insider trading saw their stocks drop in value 15-30 percent as a result of the announcement. They now have sued these officers and directors and the case (shareholder rights action) is still pending and would be directly prejudiced if Lavalin were able to avoid a criminal sentence and so for that reason alone the timing of the request for a dpa is WRONG as it can not be done to prejudice the outcome of any outstanding cases attached to it directly or indirectly;

b-the degree of involvement of senior officers of the organization must be considered which means, if it was just one individual, then the DPA makes sense, but the more wide spread the degree of involvement of senior officers, the less appropriate it becomes-certainly the insider trading done by the senior officers shows wide-spread corruption and a lack of ethics that a DPA would not be appropriate for to try address, its tailored for isolated cases pf behaviour not such advanced and wide spread corruption where something more severe needs to be done;

c- whether Lavalin took disciplinary action including termination of any persons involved-the answer here is a loud NO they have not;

d-whether Lavalin has made reparations or taken measures to remedy the behaviour that led to the charges-again the answer is a loud NO they have not;

e-whether Lavalin has identified or expressed a willingness to identify any person involved in the wrongdoings-again the answer is a loud NO they have not.

f-whether the organization — or any of its representatives was either:

i-convicted of an offence or sanctioned by a regulatory body;

ii- entered into a previous remediation agreement or other settlement, in Canada or elsewhere, for similar conduct;

ii-had any of its or any of its representatives alleged to have committed any other offences.

Isn’t it interesting Mr. Butt, Trudeau, the Privy Council head did not know any of the above had to be considered by the AG.  They would have you believe they had no idea.

This would mean Trudeau, Butt, the Privy Council head would have you believe they were not aware of the following public record with Lavalin which would because of the above make a dpa inappropriate:

A-the McGiLL University Health Centre Scandal; in 2010, SNC-Lavalin was part of the consortium that won the $1.3 billion contract to design and build the Montreal University Health Centre's Glen Site, and maintain it until 2044- the  contract eventually became the subject of a criminal investigation, and CEO Pierre Huhaime, Executive VP Riadh Ben Aissa and VP Steven Roy were all charged with bribery; Duhaime was forced out in 2012 after an audit found disturbing deficiencies and he was then arrested for making secret payments to sell company as a bribe to get the conrract. He pled guilty  Feb.1, 2012 to assisting a public civil servant commit breach of trust. He was let off of 14 other charges. Aissa was charged in 2014 with 16 counts including fraud for 22.5 milion worth of contracts in that same deal and plead guilty to one charge of using a forged document. Roy also was arrested in 2014 but acquitted;

B-Bangladesh Scandal; pursuant to an RCMP raid in September of 2012 in regards to a Padma bridge project in Bangladesh at the request of the World Bank’s anti-graft (anti bribery) unit, this led to the World Bank banning SNC-Lavalin in April of 2013 from being able to bid on any of its projects for 10 years for bribing officials in Bangladesh and Cambodia. As a result of this investigation employees disclosed a secret accounting code used to bribe people across Africa and Asia to get projects. Kevin Wallace, who was the Senior Vice President of SNC-Lavalin International Inc., Ramesh Shah and Mohammad Ismail, SNC-Lavalin employees, Bangladeshi lobbyist Abul Hasan Chowdhury and Zulfiquar Ali Bhuiyan, a Canadian citizen with business ties in Bangladesh were all charged with bribery. Wallace, Shah and Bhuiyan were acquitted in Feb. 2017 after an Ontario Superior Court justice threw out wiretap evidence against them. Ismail and Ismail and Chowdhury were acquitted as well;

C-Libya Scandal;  Lavalin had been doing business in Libya for years, then in November 2011, shortly after the fall of Moammar Gadhafi, a consultant hired by SNC-Lavalin was arrested in Mexico, accused of trying to smuggle smuggle Gadhafi's son and other family members out of Libya and into Mexico. That individual Cyndy Vanier spent 18 months in a Mexican jail before being released. She always said her contract with SNC-Lavalin was to help facilitate the travel of SNC employees in and out of Libya. She was never charged in Canada. However in February of 2015, the RCMP charged SNC-Lavalin and two of its subsidiaries with corruption and fraud in connection with many years of dealings by the company in Libya. To be specific bribing of Libyan officials for construction contracts between 2001 and 2011.

In fact bribery scandals and allegations with Lavalin in and outside Canada date back to 1995 and have been continuous inside and outside Canada. So how with such a lengthy history of questionable behaviour would anyone consider a dpa-how would the the pattern of behaviour alone NOT cause any prosecutor to deem a dpa or for that matter  plea bargain inappropriate given the repetitive nature of these bribery allegations?

5. All the above said, to qualify for eligibility for a DPA under this new law, Lavalin would also need to accept responsibility for its wrong doings, stop them, accept full responsibility for a history of bribery dating back to 1995 and here is where it gets absurd because they can’t and won’t do it, to qualify for the  DPA pay back all money they earned from projects where bribery is involved, AND nput in an actual  compliance program requiring every bid they make to be reviewed by an independent third party.

Lavalin can not and will not do that so any discussion of the DPA as being simple and done other places is nonsense. In fact it was only used in the US last year 40 times and that should tell you how narrow an application it has when its used. Very few cases qualify for it and keep in mind individuals in the US not just companies can use it and not just with economic crimes.

2-The Canadian government moved ahead with the option to fall in line with the law in other countries like the United States and Britain, he said.

What Butt did not say was a dpa has never been used in the US or Britain for such a type of case or as a result of a criminal lobbying the government of the day to directly pressure the prosecutor to use the dpa. It's never happened in the UK or Britain so his statement is misleading.

3- Butt repeated several times invoking the fact he was from Cape Breton to state his sole concern was potential loss of jobs and this loss of jobs is a legitimate public policy concern to discuss.

No it was not. Under his dpa law his government passed, potential loss of jobs is NOT a criteria layed out as a legitimate consideration to add to s.718 of the Criminal Code when considering a criminal sentence. As well Mr. Butt would have you believe this was the only consideration he was concerned with when discussing the DPA being used and had no idea of the content of the DPA law passed and what it said needed to be considered. BULL SHIT. Mr. Butt’s job, his very function is to get Trudeau re-elected. He would have you believe he never discussed his major concern was not the loss of jobs, but the back lash a loss of jobs could cost in terms of political support in Quebec. He would have you believe the job loss concern is not attached to the concern it would lose votes for Trudeau. He would have you believe  he had no idea his Prime Minister and himself had a direct conflict of interest which should have prevented them from having any conversation about the issue with the AG. He would have you believe  you are so stupid and he is so stupid he did not consider this conflict of interest. He would also have you believe you he is so stupid and oblivious to what’s going on around him, he had no idea JWR rejected the dpa and while the Privy Council and Trudeau knew this and the Deputy Justice Minister knew this even though he spoke to Trudeau constantly, he was never told this by Trudeau. BULL SHIT.

4-Ms. Raybould never told me she felt pressured… I only met with her twice.

Mr. Butt in saying the above would have you believe he is an idiot. If he met her only twice then how would he no if she felt pressured?  More to the point, how would he know that not just him but no one else knew she felt pressured because when he testified he posed his answer to say NO ONE knew she felt pressured or had rejected the DPA not just him.  Interestingly he claimed at most  he met with her twice and his office only met with her twice a month so how could she feel pressured and it was news to him. So he would have you believe after 80 meetings with Lavalin and himself and the PM, Ms. Raybould didn't know about all these meetings and when the Privy Head told her Trudeau was about to blow up and everyone was worried about the fall out, she would not feel pressured.  Then he would have you believe when he asked for a SECOND opinion well hey it wasn't a second opinion since she had none yet and its normal to tell someone to get another opinion its not to second guess any other opinion-she was so stupid and retarded she needed to have another lawyer explain to her what a dpa was, what her role was as the AG, what she could and could not consider because its a new thing. Yes indeed. A former Crown Prosecutor would have no idea what it is when considering whether a criminal trial should proceed and need a former Supreme Court Judge to tell her. This is for those of you who are not lawyers, telling a lawyer they would need to speak to another lawyer to tell them whether murder means killing someone. That is how stupid a comment it is.

Also interestingly, when asked for his notes of their conversations this man who keeps meticulous notes has none, couldn't remember his conversations and hey its just a coincidence but also today the Liberals announced they will not allow access to his records or allow Raybould  to reappear to address the conversations they had Butt brought up for the first time today. That again coming from a PM who claims to be transparent and open but has deliberately prevented this alleged inquiry from asking vital questions and considering vital evidence. Quite the transparency.

In summary the problem with Butt’s narrative narrative in addition to the above was:

a-he was silent on the issue of whether it is appropriate a subject of an on-going criminal investigation s be able to lobby the government under ANY circumstance;

b-why the dpa was slipped in at the last second in an Omnibus bill and the Liberals now refuse to let Raybould address allegations Butt made for the first time about her, and will not allow her or  him to disclose the memos of their conversations or others had with Raybould  when this is a government Trudeau loudly boasted would be ethical and transparent politician allowing no one special favours when he ran for office;

c-how Mr. Butt is so stupid he had no idea offering JWR the Ministry of Indian Affairs would be an insult to her;

d-Mr. Butt believes Canadians are so stupid that they would believe JWR was removed not because of her stand on Lavalin, but ONLY because as he said when they moved Philpott to Treasury they magically had to move her to Indian Affairs and then went oh gee that won’t work so we won't leave her and move someone else, we will move her to Veteran Affairs…no other reason. No one else could handle Veteran Affairs but her. They didn't have one other candidate to fill that Ministry and wait, being shuffled from Justice to Veterans Affairs would not be considered a demotion-again that is like saying you remove someone from being a surgeon to a gp  but they wouldn't consider it a demotion let alone he's so stupid he could not anticipate that kind of reaction not just with the Indian Ministry but the Veteran Affairs position;

e-how far does Trudeau want to push this script of idiocy and pose his partisan considerations being placed before the country's best needs as acceptable and righteous?

Where do we go  with this man now that he has established we should not sentence any criminal if that sentence could impact negatively on his being re-elected?

What the testimony did today is make things worse. It admitted this government is stupid, incompetent, and then tried to use that as an excuse for its behaviour. It would have you believe it is not capable of understanding what a conflict of interest is or pressure or undue influence and its all innocent normal day to day stuff that goes on.

This strategy necessarily will divide the Liberal party further. What it also shows is Trudeau had no problem putting the alleged considerations of his riding before any other Canadians. Is that a Prime Minister anyone wants? Is that leadership or abandonment of leadership? How do you lead when you tell the majority of the country they are expendable because you are more concerned with your own riding than the rest of them? How is that leadership?

How is it the PM let alone his toady Mr. Butt could not identify the conflicts of interest let alone believe there was more than one public interest to consider other than the one they became obsessed over?

Did anyone here any remorse in Butt? Did you hear even an iota of regret in what he said? He played himself as just a guy putting political considerations of his leader above the rest of the nation as if it was acceptable. Then he called Raybould a liar after saying he would not question her integrity by saying she only raised all her concerns and got upset AFTER she was removed from her office. He would have you believe she is a liar and made the whole thing up in a temper tantrum. That is what he rested his entire testimony on. That was as sleeze bag as it gets and it shows you what level of insults and character and personal attacks he will engage in to avoid taking responsibility for what he did.

 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Butts confirmed what I suspected: JWR pulled an ambush move as a political calculation that she thought would work in her favour.  She wasn't pressured unduly on SNC.  In fact, according to Butts, it barely came up in discussion.  JWR acted very quickly in her dismissal of a remediation for SNC (16 days?), which doesn't look like due diligence, though, according to Butts, that had nothing to do with JWR's shuffle from AG to Veterans Affairs, which happened because of Brison's resignation.  Butts did make it clear that this whole picture of inappropriate pressure on the AG came out of left field after JWR's Cabinet shuffle to Veterans Affairs.  She hadn't expressed concern in the past.  I would not want JWR on my team.  Seems like snake in the grass behavior.  I don't think she's a team player and I don't think she gave a DPA fair consideration.  She may want to be the PM.  She is not the PM.

How many smoking guns do you need to connect the dots, It amazes me how liberals can just pretend there is nothing wrong with this whole affair...So this starts with the first resignation resigns for family matters , cool nobody thinks twice about it , except he is a key player in the admirals case, strange but palatable…Why quit now he did know his term was for 4 years....but OK....next what was JWR motive to ambush anyone over this, are you saying she made it up because she did not want to give up her dream job.....lets take a look at that for a second, in the grand scheme of thing where would you place the job title of AG, near the top of the list requiring one of your top people, and where would you place Veterans affairs....at the top or near the bottom....First question why shuffle a top level minister to the bottom of the list.....did she screw something up, why not just say that, and prevent all this trouble.....did she not play ball, this seems to fit the best unless, it is normal just to shuffle the top of the list with the bottom....keep them guessing so to speak, would we run a business under this model ?

The SNC file was not invented and worked on for 16 days, its been around for a long time, so long it was a Conservative file...their was already massive amounts of research done on it already...she did seek council of other AG's and lawyers....they all came back with negative things to say, "don't do it" when it smells like shit , taste like shit, others say it is shit....normally it is shit....

Nothing to do with JWR shuffle , because it is common practice to shuffle key members to less important files or depts. if nothing was wrong why did Butts resign again ?....only to come back and give a not very convincing testimony, well except to liberal voters........and then Philpot's resignation,  she does not like how the liberals are handling all of this, another top member....but she gets written off as "shes been planning to resign for some time, I did not work in corporate HQ before, but I can tell you this someone who has been talking about resigning for a long time would not be getting a top job, for that very reason....not to mention why was she not considered for a move during shuffle number one ? why not jam her down at veterans affairs instead of the AG....

How many PM's have had 5 trips to the ethics committee, how many scandals small and large  has this liberal government had already, how many times has he embossed the country....UHH ahhh, ummm, ahhh, your asking for more than we can give right now.....Then in the news Canada invests more than 5 bil in 3 rd world nations to fight climate change....build new roads, etc, etc ….buys a pipe line for another 4.5 bil, the budget will balance itself .....it sounds like some joke on SNL, but this is real, of course lets not mention using tax dollars to fund some tv personality charity, and liberals are alright with that, and will give this wing nut another 4 years in office.....how much could he possible destroy in 4 more years...

The snake is not in the grass, its running the asylum... 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/5/2019 at 6:22 PM, GostHacked said:

How do we do anything about it when the government puts it into legislation that SNC gets a pass while not telling Canadians they did just that.?

 

By making sure them bastards don't get in again....send them a clear message...vote anything but liberal and cons and them hypercritical greens, i'll throw the NDP in there just for good luck....lets vote in the block or mad max....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting revelation....Team Trudeau actually harmed SNC-Lavalin's bottom line (and "jobs") with their spat last year involving Saudi Arabia and oil services contracts, pushing SNC into the red by more than $1 billion.   Does anybody recall Trudeau and Foreign Minister Freeland standing up for SNC-Lavalin interests then ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Rue said:

I would like to directly address these comments Mr. Butt stated today that I enumerate.

1-The deferred prosecution has been badly mischaracterized as a get-out-of-jail-free card, instead of a way for companies to make amends while protecting innocent workers, shareholders and pensioners from being harmed.

This is a misleading statement by Butt. This is not about “companies”, it is about SNC Lavalin specifically and it is crucial everyone understand the issue is not about deferred prosecution agreements or whether they can be used, it is about what criteria should be considered if using one in this specific case, and whether the specific elements of the crime and the history of the company requesting it make it a reasonable proposition to consider.

The deferred prosecution agreement as a possible  alternative to plea bargaining or traditional criminal sentencing after a trial was passed into law on September 19, 2018. This law refers to it by the name “remediation agreement”. It can be considered with companies who engaged in “economic” crimes. If allowed it would suspend ongoing or outstanding criminal proceedings. It then would require the company to complete specified undertakings to avoid facing criminal charges and an actual criminal trial. Those undertakings are described as fines, remediation measures, enhanced reporting requirements and allowing independent 3rd party audits and reviews of the company’s compliance procedures.

-----

A very long post, but states what is concerning a lot of us.  This is not a scenario of a 'couple bad apples' SNC-Lavalin's criminal activities have been sanctioned by the government giving them some immunity from prosecution.

Now we can slap the  Ottaw LRT on this list of scandals.  And now the city decided to give SNC-LAvalin the go ahead for stage 2 of the LRT when the first stage has not been complete yet (1.5 yrs late and 1.5 B over budget).  Meaning it will grow to 3 billion over budget total.

Now city councilors are pushing ahead with it and deriding anyone who is questioning it saying they do not want LRT.  Voting against a bad plan is NOT being against LRT. Communities are not being engaged asking people what they want/need.  

Huge waste of money for essentially no-bid contracts for a corrupt criminal organization who's activities are essentially sanctioned by the government.

SNC-Lavalin is worse than a huge mafia syndicate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Army Guy said:

By making sure them bastards don't get in again....send them a clear message...vote anything but liberal and cons and them hypercritical greens, i'll throw the NDP in there just for good luck....lets vote in the block or mad max....

How do you prevent SECRET meetings?  You think that it's just a Liberal problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, GostHacked said:

SNC-Lavalin is worse than a huge mafia syndicate.

Bingo.   We have left the Mafia and Hell's Angels alone to run gambling, prostition and drugs.   We have left SNC alone to screw up every major project they have entered simply because they have the ear of Power Corp. and the LPC.   i.e. they are in Quebec.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OMG!! Take off the blinders please. There is clearly no wrong or right here. Both parties have stood their ground and defended what they think is right. I have great admiration for JWR for defending her position and Trudeau standing up for Canadian jobs. I am so grateful for living in a country where this is the biggest scandal of the year to date

Garry C

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Just a Dude said:

OMG!! Take off the blinders please. There is clearly no wrong or right here. Both parties have stood their ground and defended what they think is right. I have great admiration for JWR for defending her position and Trudeau standing up for Canadian jobs. I am so grateful for living in a country where this is the biggest scandal of the year to date

Garry C

A shame he doesn't stand up for the thousands of lost Albertan jobs; besides, it was more about votes than jobs because when asked they replied there was no data to prove the loss of jobs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GostHacked said:

A very long post, but states what is concerning a lot of us.  This is not a scenario of a 'couple bad apples' SNC-Lavalin's criminal activities have been sanctioned by the government giving them some immunity from prosecution.

Now we can slap the  Ottaw LRT on this list of scandals.  And now the city decided to give SNC-LAvalin the go ahead for stage 2 of the LRT when the first stage has not been complete yet (1.5 yrs late and 1.5 B over budget).  Meaning it will grow to 3 billion over budget total.

Now city councilors are pushing ahead with it and deriding anyone who is questioning it saying they do not want LRT.  Voting against a bad plan is NOT being against LRT. Communities are not being engaged asking people what they want/need.  

Huge waste of money for essentially no-bid contracts for a corrupt criminal organization who's activities are essentially sanctioned by the government.

SNC-Lavalin is worse than a huge mafia syndicate.

Are you saying there wasn’t an open bidding process for who would get the contract to build the LRT?  That’s a problem.  Is this provincially and municipally contracted?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, scribblet said:

A shame he doesn't stand up for the thousands of lost Albertan jobs; besides, it was more about votes than jobs because when asked they replied there was no data to prove the loss of jobs.

In addition the Liberals insisting that the SNC Lavalin HQ would leave Canada (Quebec specifically) if found guilty in a criminal trial is a monumental lie. It's reported the company has just spent millions renovating their premises and they signed a deal to remain in Montreal until 2024. Lie upon lie from the Liberals. Why all these efforts to save this company's skin? The real motive will eventually be uncovered by the media.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just a Dude said:

OMG!! Take off the blinders please. There is clearly no wrong or right here. Both parties have stood their ground and defended what they think is right. I have great admiration for JWR for defending her position and Trudeau standing up for Canadian jobs. I am so grateful for living in a country where this is the biggest scandal of the year to date

Garry C

C'mon, what are those canadian jobs? Secondly, assuming he is telling the truth (I highly doubt it), that is morally unjustified. He is standing for his own contributor :rolleyes:

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Are you saying there wasn’t an open bidding process for who would get the contract to build the LRT?  That’s a problem.  Is this provincially and municipally contracted?

Chances are it was going to SNC-Lavalin as they are already involved in the LRT in Ottawa.  Reward them by giving them the contract for Phase 2.  It is both provincially and municipally contracted. There could have been an 'open-bid',  but that would be like  putting the job position up knowing you already are going to hire a specific person.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Barrack Obama has showed up in Canada to attempt to influence Canadians on Trudeau

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/03/06/justin-is-in-trouble-and-look-who-pops-up-in-canada-again/#more-160932

The fate of Justin Trudeau should be up to Canadians.  Don't let foreign influence chart the course of Canada.  If Trudeau works for Canada fine, if not cool, it's an internal matter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Just a Dude said:

OMG!! Take off the blinders please. There is clearly no wrong or right here. Both parties have stood their ground and defended what they think is right. I have great admiration for JWR for defending her position and Trudeau standing up for Canadian jobs. I am so grateful for living in a country where this is the biggest scandal of the year to date

Garry C

You are naive if you think Trudeau was standing up for jobs. The only thing Trudeau was concerned about was how it would reflect on his government in an election year if SNC Lavalin were to shed jobs or move or go out of business.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Argus said:

What would you suggest? Armed revolution?

Just a public lynching will do. :D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, capricorn said:

In addition the Liberals insisting that the SNC Lavalin HQ would leave Canada (Quebec specifically) if found guilty in a criminal trial is a monumental lie. It's reported the company has just spent millions renovating their premises and they signed a deal to remain in Montreal until 2024. Lie upon lie from the Liberals. Why all these efforts to save this company's skin? The real motive will eventually be uncovered by the media.

They also have a massive debt to a Quebec pension fund, and if they were to leave or default, they would have to give up their crown jewel - the 407 - as that is the security.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Zeitgeist said:

Are you saying there wasn’t an open bidding process for who would get the contract to build the LRT?  That’s a problem.  Is this provincially and municipally contracted?

more like a small bribe here and there and poof you got the winning contract.....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Just a Dude said:

OMG!! Take off the blinders please. There is clearly no wrong or right here. Both parties have stood their ground and defended what they think is right. I have great admiration for JWR for defending her position and Trudeau standing up for Canadian jobs. I am so grateful for living in a country where this is the biggest scandal of the year to date

Garry C

Are you F***king kidding me, 3 people have resigned todate, why if there was nothing wrong in the first place would someone out of the blue just resign, and we are not talking about minor cabinet members or butts postion…......... not to mention the ton of questions gone unanswered , and then mr public service guy time in front of the committee are you telling me that all went well, nothing to see here, no smoke......... and you have don't have an  answer for what is wrong here.....Funny how 5 previous AG have said there should be a RCMP investigation, for criminal charges...what do they know right....sweep that shit under the carpet...everyone in government are reasonable, for their actions, to be held to a higher standard than the rest of us.... This is not how this looks.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, GostHacked said:

How do you prevent SECRET meetings?  You think that it's just a Liberal problem?

this was not just a secret meeting this was on the verge of criminal.....and no I don't think its just a liberal problem.... 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Army Guy said:

this was not just a secret meeting this was on the verge of criminal.....and no I don't think its just a liberal problem.... 

You prevent secret meetings by first of all eliminating partisanship from government.  We would then elect people who we know to represent their constituents.   PM and Cabinet could then be elected by MP,  and PM would not have right of veto nor would that make sense with no party interests to represent.  Then you make lobbying illegal, and finally EVERY Cabinet meeting or interface  between government and the outside real world recorded and publicly available online.  If you need to say it to our representative, you need to say it to anyone interested in seeing/hearing.   Oh...and you make recall a workable part of protocols and direct democracy from online votes a part of the process.   AND: influence peddling as well as acting on influence peddling are automatic jail time on conviction (which should be easy without secret meetings).   Finally, pay MPs enough that they don't need to satiate their greed from backroom deals.   Also: penalties for conferring or receiving benefits extend to after elected office.

Edited by cannuck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GostHacked said:

A very long post, but states what is concerning a lot of us.  This is not a scenario of a 'couple bad apples' SNC-Lavalin's criminal activities have been sanctioned by the government giving them some immunity from prosecution.

Now we can slap the  Ottaw LRT on this list of scandals.  And now the city decided to give SNC-LAvalin the go ahead for stage 2 of the LRT when the first stage has not been complete yet (1.5 yrs late and 1.5 B over budget).  Meaning it will grow to 3 billion over budget total.

Now city councilors are pushing ahead with it and deriding anyone who is questioning it saying they do not want LRT.  Voting against a bad plan is NOT being against LRT. Communities are not being engaged asking people what they want/need.  

Huge waste of money for essentially no-bid contracts for a corrupt criminal organization who's activities are essentially sanctioned by the government.

SNC-Lavalin is worse than a huge mafia syndicate.

I apologize for the length it was ridiculously long but I wanted to cover all the issues properly.

I expect no one to read them all but I try cover them all with proper care.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I got this to say about Justin's press presentation this morning at 8 a.m.

1-Trudeau stated at the beginning of his interview today he did not know JWR had come to a final opinion.

Yet 15 minutes later in response to a question from a Globe & Mail Reporter he told JWR to consider and I quote: “revisiting the issue with a second legal opinion”.

2-Trudeau today stated he did mention to JWR that as Member of Parliament of Gatineau he was extremely concerned about loss of jobs in his riding.

Funny how Mr. Butt who spoke with him every friggin hour of the day could not remember the above conversation yesterday when he was asked. This also meansMr. Trudeau knew he had a conflict of interest with this issue and yet raised it  anyways.

How does Trudeau continue to acknowledge he had a conflict of interest and should have recused himself from discussions on Lavalin with their on-going criminal proceedings?

3-Mr. Trudeau raised many times that his concern was loss of jobs in Quebec and it was his job to raise that issue to JWR.

First off because of his conflict of interest he should not have raised it with her and he continues to blatantly ignore that fact showing a contempt for the very basic principal of conflict of interest.

Secondly, how did Mr. Trudeau not know the AG could not consider the job losses? because of her job description?

Thirdly and most importantly, the law Mr. Trudeau passed allowing deferred prosecution agreements does not and never stated loss of jobs is a criteria for granting a deferred prosecution agreement. You can read the law yourself, loss of jobs is not a legal consideration for determining whether a deferred prosecution agreement should be considered. Butt and Trudeau were the ones who insisted that law be passed so how do they not know this and why would they keep raising it knowing it was not criteria for a dpa?

Fourthly what proof does Mr. Trudeau, Mr. Butt or anyone else have, that Lavalin would lose jobs? When asked Butt said he had no proof. When Mr. Trudeau was asked today he said he had a “variety of sources”. That’s interesting because when further asked to produce those sources  he would not answer and when asked to mention one source, he could not. Mr. Butt said yesterday he never had a source for that speculation.

Lavalin by the way has a head office in Quebec City. They borrowed 1.5 billion from the Caisse Populaires in Quebec as I stated earlier with an express agreement that if they move out of Quebec before 2024 they must pay back the loan in full plus a penalty. So on what basis would they move out? 

For that matter the speculation about loss of jobs actually originates from a spin by Lavalin to the Liberal government that if they are criminally sentenced, they would not be allowed federal government contracts for 10 years and that is where they would lose their anticipated future revenue. That is a false and nonsensical speculation. Their fear of a 10  year ban comes from the fact the World Bank has banned them from any projects for 10 years because of bribery convictions for procuring contracts in Bangladesh and Cambodia.

The Criminal Code sentencing criteria does not state this as part of a fraud sentence so again if the government has a policy of not dealing with criminals that would have nothing to do with the criminal trial or role of the prosecutor or AG but something the government would decide after a sentence as a policy consideration and would not be done by the Mnr of Justice or AG so why was it being thrown in JWR's face as a consideration?

As for the deferred prosecution agreement it is not an automatic entitlement, one is only eligible for consideration for it if they first meet many conditions none related to employing people and many which Lavalin has indicated it would not agree to already so again I ask, why is the dpa even being discussed as if it could have been used?

The most crucial element of ANY deferred prosecution agreement would be that  it would have to require Lavalin to pay back any money it earned from projects awarded through bribery. That is what the dpa law Trudeau passed says and Lavalin  indicated they would not do that so why the bull shit script that pretends a dpa could be considered?

I again ask why is a dpa even being discussed or in need of a second  legal opinion? No lawyer no matter how many times they are asked can change the conditions required before a dpa can be considered which was written in Trudeau's law and I explained in the lengthy post.

Also why is it the Liberals would think you need a second opinion to tell you what the law they wrote says but would not consider ANY professional opinion on their assumption jobs could be lost?

4-Mr. Trudeau says he learned from his mistakes.

Clearly he did not because today he repeated again it was legally appropriate for him to raise a partisan issuesunrelated to the dpa as a legitimate consideration to raise to an AG when it is clear her role says she can not under any circumstance consider this criteria as  it is not criteria to decide the  eligibility or need of a dpa and an AG can not under any circumstance consider things unrelated to the crime itself.

Trudeau does not get it. He thinks people who indirectly profit from criminal behaviour justify allowing a criminal to lobby the government and pressure it to do an end run around its own AG to crop a case.  He refused to recognize the problems associated with this that he caused and still can not grasp. Mr. Trudeau said seeking special favour for a criminal in an ongoing proceeding is perfectly acceptable provided it assures people in his riding benefit from a relationship with the criminal.  How other than Trudeau can anyone not see that as a conflict of interest and breach of the rule of law?

More to the point Mr. Trudeau did not apologize or say in future situations he would remove himself from any situations with a conflict of interest or discussions that could compromise the integrity of an ongoing legal proceeding, in fact he said he would continue doing what he did and did NOT pressure JWG. He said she was NOT pressured. He would have people believe forcing his AG to consider partisan riding issues  as a consideration to drop a trial is not pressure. He would have people believe allowing his office to meet with Lavalin 80 times between 2016 and 2019 would not have by itself created pressure on the AG just from knowing that alone. Then we saw the demeanour and behaviour of the Privy Council head, a second time yesterday showing an unstable, angry, sarcastic, partisan individual and we are supposed to believe that man would have not exerted any pressure? We are supposed to believe telling the AG to revisit her opinion and get a second one by itself being said, is pressure? We are supposed to believe sending his Butt boy, whose job it is to protect Trudeau from anything that could negate his being re-elected was not pressure? Mr. Butt's sole reason of existence is to get Trudeau re-elected and as such he has no business even speaking to a prosecutor let alone the chief one.

Mr. Trudeau takes no responsibility for his actions. He also continued the line to tell  JWR how she felt. He again repeated and I quote “she was not pressured” at one point, a slip showing he would not acknowledge her feelings even though at the beginning of his presentation he talked about an “erosion of trust”.

Interestingly he didn’t say he caused the erosion of trust at any time or take responsibility for his actions being a cause of the erosion of trust, just he should have realized she did not trust him. Oh it was all friendly discussion he said. He had no idea she did not trust him. Does anyone buy that? Does anyone buy into that script? Here you are an  AG not supposed to discuss on-going criminal proceedings and you see your Prime Minister and his underlings meet with the criminal charged 80 times in three years and you would not by that alone feel pressured?

After the PM raised his concerns for loss of jobs what was that, a non pressurized statement?

When the Privy Council head called her (and he admitted he did) telling her Trudeau was upset over potential job losses and she better reconsider a dpa, what was that? Interestingly today JWR offered to provide written evidence of the pressure and the Liberal majority on the committee refused.

They have cut her off and will not permit any consideration of written evidence sent to JWR from the PM, his PMO or the Privy Council head who when asked about his memos said he had none. That by the way after Mr. Trudeau today when asked by a reporter said he was and continues to be transparent? He again said one thing and demonstrated another. He claims he is open while banning evidence showing he pressured JWR.

Today’s comments were  a charade. They evidenced a  contrite, petulant rich boy of privilege refusing to acknowledge he made serious mistakes and saying he will keep doing what he has and has led to all his problems and carry on as if nothing bad has happened.

It’s a little late for that. Also ironically his flight to go apologize to indigenous people for the handling of tuberculosis in the 1950’s was interfered with by bad weather. Coincidence?

Lol.

I again ask the Liberal apologists on this forum, ehen in the history of Canada or any democratic nation has a criminal lobbied the government of the day and its Prime Minister to use their office to try influence the outcome of an ongoing criminal proceeding?

Please have the Liberals on this forum calling that “normal” and “ethical” and “legal” provide an example.

Finally I will say it one last time for the Liberals on this forum. A dpa is predicated on an alleged criminal BEFORE not after they are charged, voluntarily approaching the crown on their case and offering to make restitution. Lavalin has never done that. In fact it went around the prosecutor to the PMO to pressure the AG to back off and when she would not raised the dpa as a solution and lobbied Trudeau to pass a dpa law. That is not how dpa’s work. In fact you don’t even need a dpa law. We could have had a plea bargain that would do the same thing. The reason there was no plea bargain is neither Lavalin or Trudeau wanted to take the chance as to the sentence a Judge would demand against Lavalin.

What Lavalin knows is they are a REPEAT offender of bribery crimes and so the sentence can NOT be lenient because of how the Criminal Code is written. No the Criminal Code does not to allow a repeat offender a lighter sentence let alone a dpa.

Next, ask yourselves this about these Liberals. How long ago was it on this forum and in Parliament Liberals were all wetting their pants over Mike Duffy. How do these same righteous defenders of ethics and open government defend what Trudeau is doing now?

I also seem to remember these Liberals on this forum lecture many of us that the West is to blame for the problems of the third world by propping evil dictators. However if Lavalin does that and bribes these evil dictators Omni has no issues with that and none of these other Liberal  do gooders do.

Suddenly when a Liberal gets into bed with an unethical, corrupt multi-national that pays off dictators and war criminals, its o.k. because it employs Canadians?

BULL SHIT.

As Dougie would say, God Bless the Queen... no not Trudeau, Liz Windsor.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, GostHacked said:

How do you prevent SECRET meetings?  You think that it's just a Liberal problem?

You don't get it; It is JT's sunny ways. 

Anyway, JT knows he has the voters in the palm of his hands. Liberals will still vote for him, and the swing votes will not vote for conservative party.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...