Author Topic: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case  (Read 81922 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 556,405
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,191
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #950 on: April 12, 2019, 12:21:36 »
This story is in Canadian politics. Why would you bring up the US?
It's a simple comparison;  you're torn apart by periodic behaviours in our Prime Minister that are the foundational bedrock of Trump's personality.... a political leader you clearly worship.

The chiding occurred because that occurrence wasn't a comparison between the two leaders, but a question asked (in typical handwringing fashion) specifically about why Trudeau wasn't being treated the same (not about Trudeau's behaviour specifically)... in the US President thread... therefore, off topic.  And yes, I fully expect that difference to continue eluding you.

Regardless, expecting your response, I let it go.... until your dizzying intellect went that extra step to proclaim your belief in a Liberal policy of an "overwhelming desire to kill Canada," which drew me back into the inevitable train-wreck.
       ::)

Back to IGNORE

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #951 on: April 12, 2019, 12:30:30 »
FOIA is an American thing. 

In Canada it is ATIP.

I stopped using ATIP outside of government because no one knew what I was talking about. I have done many both asking and providing.

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #952 on: April 12, 2019, 12:35:26 »
Unless someone's read something different I haven't seen (more than likely, given the speed of events unfolding), that's still an IF if we believe what The Canadian Press wrote:We know from the Speaker's decision that ...So, as Colin P said, $5 and a form may free up that tidbit of information ...

The law is explicit, they must vote.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,736
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #953 on: April 12, 2019, 13:00:30 »
The law is explicit, they must vote.

The law says they must vote. It doesn’t explicitly state what the question must be. 49.8(1) says they “shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:”

So it does not say they must yes/no it at that time. If they voted and the result was to defer the matter to a party convention to put the question to the party more broadly, I don’t see that the law as written prohibits that. A vote was held ‘in respect of’ the question. Not liking the answer doesn’t make it illegitimate.

It’s helpful when considering questions of law to read the law in question, and to do it with an eye to detail and precision of meaning. While Chong’s Reform Act seemed like a political silver bullet for the opposition when Philpott filed her question on the matter, it doesn’t look like the facts are matching the wants on this once scrutinized.

October isn’t far. Patience.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 423,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,169
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #954 on: April 12, 2019, 13:25:41 »
The law says they must vote. It doesn’t explicitly state what the question must be. 49.8(1) says they “shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:”
On the "what they're voting on", you're right.  On the how, though, the law says (49.8 (3)), "The vote of each caucus member, in each vote, is to be recorded"  so the record must be SOMEWHERE.
October isn’t far. Patience.
Tick, tick, tick, indeed ...
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,736
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #955 on: April 12, 2019, 13:29:06 »
On the "what they're voting on", you're right.  On the how, though, the law says (49.8 (3)), "The vote of each caucus member, in each vote, is to be recorded"  so the record must be SOMEWHERE.Tick, tick, tick, indeed ...

Oh, absolutely. But as I mentioned a couple posts back, if the vote had simply not been hell, JP or JWR would likely have hauled that fact out by now. The statement to the speaker that it was voted to be deferred to the party convention is both completely plausible, and easily refutable had that not been the case. By all means ask for receipts, but I don't see any room for deception on that particular point. It would be absurd to even try.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,470
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #956 on: April 12, 2019, 17:35:54 »
I stopped using ATIP outside of government because no one knew what I was talking about. I have done many both asking and providing.

Fair enough.  In a past life I was a an information officer at the privacy commission.  A small stint but very eye opening.
Optio

Offline Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 144,460
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,594
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #957 on: April 12, 2019, 22:23:22 »
Back in the day, ATIPs cost $800 per hour of mainframe use......

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 423,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,169
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #958 on: April 13, 2019, 07:01:24 »
Back in the day, ATIPs cost $800 per hour of mainframe use......
And now, some are told to ONLY include time spent searching hard-copy files in the "time needed" box, not searching electronic files.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 513,220
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,568
    • The job.
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #959 on: April 13, 2019, 08:01:20 »
And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.

Regarding the 407, received this in my pension plan news,

Quote
OMERS Announces Signing of Agreement for Acquisition of Stake in 407 International Inc.

April 05, 2019

OMERS Infrastructure today announced that it has signed a purchase and sale agreement with SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. for the acquisition of a 10.01% stake in 407 International Inc., which holds a concession over 407 Express Toll Route (“407 ETR”).  The purchase price consists of an upfront payment of C$3.0 billion. The sale is subject to certain shareholders’ rights, including rights-of-first refusal.
https://www.omers.com/News/Investing-News/2019/OMERS-stake-407-international-inc



Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 142,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,691
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #960 on: April 13, 2019, 10:45:37 »
Oh, absolutely. But as I mentioned a couple posts back, if the vote had simply not been hell, JP or JWR would likely have hauled that fact out by now. The statement to the speaker that it was voted to be deferred to the party convention is both completely plausible, and easily refutable had that not been the case. By all means ask for receipts, but I don't see any room for deception on that particular point. It would be absurd to even try.

Except that it is improper for a voter - any voter in any type of vote - to actually vote on behalf of someone without that right to vote. It is for members of Parliament here to vote individually as part of their role as MP on how they want their caucus to work. It's not for them to defer and act for the party. If they had differed by a few weeks/months so they could each consult their constituent - that is people at large in their riding - that would be OK as they represent those people - not the party.

Also, I feel that there is more blame to go around here, as we are three years into the mandate: Those recorded votes are supposed to be forwarded to the Speaker. So why has his office not contacted the various party leaders yet to inquire of the votes and their records? I think that is the reason he ruled the way he did: He also screwed up.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 208,605
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,758
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #961 on: April 13, 2019, 10:58:07 »
Thanks for that OGBD.

I have been puzzling over the issue of who is responsible for administering the Parliament Act since the Speaker of the House of Commons said it wasn't his job.

If not his, then whose?

In some senses Parliament is the ultimate in self-regulating associations - like Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and such-like.  Their authority derives from them effectively policing themselves so that the courts don't have to step in.

Parliament says the courts can't regulate it.  But what if it won't regulate (I should say "effectively regulate") itself then it risks having itself regulated.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 66,900
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,805
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #962 on: May 08, 2019, 12:08:03 »
Given that today the Public Prosecution Service of Canada elected to stay/withdraw (not sure which yet) the charge against VADM Norman, it will be interesting to see their next moves in this case.  Will a similar decision of "no likelihood of conviction" be rendered?  Will The DPP, who decided to stay/withdraw the Norman charge, now decide that a DPA is the way ahead for SNC-Lavailn?
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 218,382
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,479
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #963 on: May 29, 2019, 19:14:31 »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-trial-corruption-bribery-1.5153429

SNC-Lavalin to stand trial on corruption charges, Quebec judge rules

Quebec engineering giant accused of bribing Libyan officials while Gadhafi in power

Jonathan Montpetit · CBC News · Posted: May 29, 2019 10:35 AM ET

There is enough evidence against SNC-Lavalin for the engineering corporation to be tried on fraud and bribery charges, a Quebec court judge ruled Wednesday.

<snip>

Wednesday's court decision, handed down in Montreal, followed an extended preliminary inquiry into accusations that federal prosecutors filed in 2015.

<snip>

Justice Claude Leblond had the option of dismissing the charges if he found there was no chance of a conviction.

<snip>

Asked whether a DPA was still possible, Roy said simply: "The director of public prosecutions has made a decision in that regard."

<snip>

No date has yet been set for SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. The corporation returns to court June 7, when it will indicate whether it wants a trial by judge or jury.

<snip>

The new federal justice minister, David Lametti, has so far refused to comment on whether the government is still considering offering SNC-Lavalin a DPA. Legally, he can do so up until there is a verdict in the criminal case.

Lametti, on Wednesday, maintained his silence on the issue. He said he wanted to ensure his statements did not influence the court proceedings.

But the federal infrastructure minister, François-Philippe Champagne, reiterated the Liberal government's concerns about the damage a criminal trial could cause SNC-Lavalin.

<snip>

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 462,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,784
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #964 on: August 02, 2019, 17:00:33 »
In the"Nothing to see here, folks" department, on the Friday afternoon before the long weekend, with city council shut for the summer and the mayor out of town on vacation, the City of Ottawa has admitted that the consortium selected to build part of its light rail network which included SNC-Lavalin didn't meet the required technical threshold.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/documents-snc-lavalin-failed-technical-score-1.5234767

Quote
Those scores arrived in the mail from the city clerk's office Friday — the same day the city released the scores to councillors in a memo answering an inquiry from Coun. Diane Deans, a major critic of the LRT Stage 2 procurement process.

The 37-page memo includes a description of how a bidder could continue in the process after failing the technical evaluation.

According to the memo, subsection 6.5.2(4) of the RFP — a document that councillors didn't see and was refused to CBC — gave the "sponsor" of the procurement process "sole discretion" to determine whether a bidder could continue to be considered.

"The requirements to achieve a minimum of 70 per cent in the technical scoring, therefore, was not an absolute pass/fail," according to the memo sent to councillors on Friday afternoon.

The city has not yet identified the sponsor that had the authority to move SNC-Lavalin along in the procurement process.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,470
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #965 on: August 02, 2019, 18:21:31 »
In the"Nothing to see here, folks" department, on the Friday afternoon before the long weekend, with city council shut for the summer and the mayor out of town on vacation, the City of Ottawa has admitted that the consortium selected to build part of its light rail network which included SNC-Lavalin didn't meet the required technical threshold.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/documents-snc-lavalin-failed-technical-score-1.5234767

SNC signs all around near my place where they are building.  Not much work happening though.
Optio

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,736
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #966 on: August 02, 2019, 18:48:29 »
SNC signs all around near my place where they are building.  Not much work happening though.

Lots of land clearance and gravel pouring going on down near the airport parkway... I suspect they’re bulldozing the actual route first and then the hard building will start. If stage 1 is an indication, it’ll start testing in 2030.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline dapaterson

    Mostly Harmless.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Myth
  • *
  • 462,630
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16,784
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #967 on: August 02, 2019, 19:03:46 »
If stage 1 is an indication, it’ll start testing in 2030.

#Optimist
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Cloud Cover

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 42,080
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,198
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #968 on: August 14, 2019, 12:15:07 »
Breach of Conflict of Interest: http://ciec-ccie.parl.gc.ca/EN/ReportsAndPublications/Pages/TrudeauIIReport.aspx

Despite all the outrage, this likely changes nothing, and he will probably survive. 

Note that once again, the PCO and PMO is continuing to withhold information, and forbade at least 9 witnesses with evidence from providing information to the investigation. Also note that Trudeau received the report on July 19, was able to make submissions on the report, and that in there interim period a CBC journalist (and known Trudeau sympathizer Aaron Wherry) released a book that touches on this matter, and that CBC itself has been promoting the book including a segment a few nights ago on The National.
Living the lean life

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 121,706
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,342
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #969 on: August 14, 2019, 12:48:20 »
" Unbeknownst to the Attorney General at that time, legal opinions from two former Supreme Court justices, retained by SNC-Lavalin, had been reviewed by the Prime Minister's Office and other ministerial offices. Meanwhile, both SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister's Office had approached the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to participate in the matter."

That is news to me. That's really rigging the game ain't it, quite damning. The whole executive summary is damning but it's essentially everything we already knew, with the Commissioner essentially just agreeing with the broad consensus.

Somehow, this has not sunk the Liberals. It's pretty scary.

Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Online Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,450
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,470
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #970 on: August 14, 2019, 12:56:40 »
" Unbeknownst to the Attorney General at that time, legal opinions from two former Supreme Court justices, retained by SNC-Lavalin, had been reviewed by the Prime Minister's Office and other ministerial offices. Meanwhile, both SNC-Lavalin and the Prime Minister's Office had approached the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to participate in the matter."

That is news to me. That's really rigging the game ain't it, quite damning. The whole executive summary is damning but it's essentially everything we already knew, with the Commissioner essentially just agreeing with the broad consensus.

Somehow, this has not sunk the Liberals. It's pretty scary.

This won’t be enough to sink him.
Optio

Offline ballz

    ...

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 121,706
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,342
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #971 on: August 14, 2019, 13:33:21 »
Watching the news there is some pretty tough commentary from a Democracy Watch representative... I'll admit, I don't know much about the organization or how biased it is... but essentially he's saying that at minimum, if the RCMP don't investigate the PM for obstruction of justice at this point, then those who make those decisions need to publicly explain to Canadians their reasoning. I agree with this. I am genuinely concerned as to why the RCMP didn't investigate before, but given what the Ethics Commissioner has concluded, including the fact that Trudeau and team were loading the deck to advise JWR the way he wanted her to be advised, I don't know how they can't...
Have you ever danced with the devil in the pale moonlight?

Offline Hamish Seggie

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 228,657
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,327
  • This is my son Michael, KIA Afghanistan 3 Sep 08
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #972 on: August 14, 2019, 13:37:11 »
Watching the news there is some pretty tough commentary from a Democracy Watch representative... I'll admit, I don't know much about the organization or how biased it is... but essentially he's saying that at minimum, if the RCMP don't investigate the PM for obstruction of justice at this point, then those who make those decisions need to publicly explain to Canadians their reasoning. I agree with this. I am genuinely concerned as to why the RCMP didn't investigate before, but given what the Ethics Commissioner has concluded, including the fact that Trudeau and team were loading the deck to advise JWR the way he wanted her to be advised, I don't know how they can't...

You do realize the RCMP - at least much of the leadership - are in the pockets of the Liberal party....
Freedom Isn't Free   "Never Shall I Fail My Brothers"

“Do everything that is necessary and nothing that is not".

Offline Brad Sallows

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 72,130
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,890
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #973 on: August 14, 2019, 13:41:09 »
Excellent opportunity for the "experts" to do the right thing to maintain the credibility of the institutions.

Or not.
That which does not kill me has made a grave tactical error.

"It is a damned heavy blow; but whining don't help."

Despair is a sin.

Offline Halifax Tar

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 48,103
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,918
  • Ready Aye Ready
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #974 on: August 14, 2019, 14:42:32 »
The PM is about to speak from Niagara On The Lake.  Will be interesting hear what he has to say...
Lead me, follow me or get the hell out of my way