• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case

Jarnhamar said:
Trudeau sounds like a control freak that doesn't like women disobeying him.

Well, the apple never falls far from the tree!

How can the son of a womanizer like Trudeau senior, whose mother was no feminist (more like a free spirit that was right at home on the Gulf Islands - I dated such a free spirit for a while in my younger days: most freakishly difficult relationship to keep up  :nod:) become feminist, other than as a rebellious stand against parental authority? That doesn't make him a real feminist, but someone who learns to wrap himself in the cloak to aggravate parents - or people, IMHO.
 
Jarnhamar said:
Trudeau sounds like a control freak that doesn't like women anybody disobeying him.

FTFY.

Sadly, as soon as the pre-election budget is released, followed closely by Minster Blair's recommendations for gun bans, the new AG will direct the SNC DPA to be issued, citing highly publicized "revised legal opinions".  The nails will be driven into the coffin of JWR's error in judgement and then the Liberals will be polling back in majority territory.  If the PM was smart, that's when he'd call an early snap election before something else went wrong for Team Red.
 
Haggis:

Are you suggesting that Trudeau could win one more election at this stage by (1) giving lots of candy in a pre-electoral budget, then (2) doing something that is very unpopular in the West, and possibly in good part of Ontario (giving a bribe ridden corporation from Quebec a goody in the form of a DPA) and then (3) breaking publicly yet another law for no good reason (calling a snap election outside the date called for by the fixed date election law without valid crisis to warrant it)?

I am far from convinced.

BTW, I have worked in the past with the department of justice lawyers and can tell you a couple of things. First, the DOJ does not get outside legal opinions. It has all the expert lawyers it needs in house to provide legal advice to the government. I am not talking about the public prosecution services here, but the actual DOJ lawyers. Second,the DOJ has  expert lawyers in criminal law that the DPPS and the Attorney-General probably consulted with before making their decision on a DPA. These lawyers, again, are not prosecutors but world beating experts on criminal law matters who are there to advise on the drafting and application of any such law. Again here, they don't take outside advice on their area of expertise.
 
100%- except for an injunction, there's no way to prevent a snap election if the GG approves it. It's unlikely the GG would not and the government would then be in a tough position. *

The PPS is generally an in house org, but with about 450 extra hired gun "agents" for specialist niche prosecutions or drug court prosecutions. The DoJ generally only hires external counsel for opinions for advice about the laws of another country, or where for some rare circumstance they are in a conflict of interest. ( ie the Minister and minions are accused or under investigation and require counsel themselves for legal actions they've initiated or advised on). Very rare, but some ( certainly not all) law suits for malicious prosecution  come to mind.

Government agencies, like CBC, NEB etc, have in house counsel but routinely hire external counsel.

*Wikipedia

"When introducing the legislation, Harper stated that "fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage. They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."[7] However, despite the amendments to the legislation, the prime minister is still free to request an election at any time. As the Bill C-16 amendments to the Canada Elections Act clearly state "Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General's discretion", the change effectively altered only the maximum duration of a parliament by ensuring that it ends no later than October of the fourth calendar year after its commencement, while leaving the possibility of an earlier end unaffected.[4]

This situation was illustrated by the dissolution of parliament at PM Harper's request on September 7, 2008. This led Democracy Watch to initiate proceedings in federal court against the Crown-in-Council, the Prime Minister of Canada, and the Governor General of Canada, challenging the decision to call an election prior to the fixed election date. Judge Michel M.J. Shore dismissed the matter, saying the applicants who launched the suit "do not demonstrate a proper understanding of the separation of powers," since "[t]he remedy for the applicant's contention is not for the Federal Court to decide, but rather one of the count of the ballot box".[8] The court effectively found that the fixed election dates were not binding on the prime minister or legally enforceable by the courts."
 
Oldgateboatdriver said:
Haggis:

Are you suggesting that Trudeau could win one more election at this stage by (1) giving lots of candy in a pre-electoral budget, then (2) doing something that is very unpopular in the West, and possibly in good part of Ontario (giving a bribe ridden corporation from Quebec a goody in the form of a DPA) and then (3) breaking publicly yet another law for no good reason (calling a snap election outside the date called for by the fixed date election law without valid crisis to warrant it)?

Are you saying that anything postulated above is beyond the realm of possibility given current events?

Remember, the PMO, the PCO and the new AG believe that obtaining outside legal advice is completely acceptable and, in fact, desirable if that will result in the intended outcome of a DPA.  Why else would they have recommended it to JWR?
 
milnews.ca said:
In case you're interested, here's Friday's Federal Court decision ...

An excellent read.  Thanks for the link, Milnews.

G2G
 
An ancillary concern of mine is the possibility of the reputation of the Supreme Court being tarnished by the actions of retired judges. 
 
Good2Golf said:
An excellent read.  Thanks for the link, Milnews.

G2G
Not a problem - happy to feed the debate stew.

In fact, for those interested in the Readers Digest verison, here's the official one-page Federal Court summary of the decision.
 

Attachments

Attachments

  • CoppsTweetJWR.JPG
    CoppsTweetJWR.JPG
    62.3 KB · Views: 135
  • CoppsTweetJWR2.JPG
    CoppsTweetJWR2.JPG
    80.9 KB · Views: 137
From what I've read "9000" jobs aren't at stake if snc gets barred from federal contracts.
There is still a ton of provincial contracts they can bid on that are big money.
They are still involved in federal and provincial projects that won't be completed for a few years.
They're still involved in contract negotiations for a bunch of contracts.

The 9000 jobs lost is a bullshit a statement as all their anti-gun crap.

 
milnews.ca said:
Some highlights :)

I'd be willing to bet the energy sector in Alberta (used to) employ(s) more FN people than SNC does.
 
Jarnhamar said:
The 9000 jobs lost is a bullshit a statement as all their anti-gun crap.

Gerald Butts was pressed by the Justice Committee to back up the 9,000 jobs at risk claim.  He could not.
 
That's one of the points that leads me to conclude those people are utterly devoid of any sense of what they sound like.  A whole industry can be left to fend for itself in the gusts of the global economy and hurricanes of domestic provincial politics, but let one company important to the LPC sniffle...
 
milnews.ca said:
Not a problem - happy to feed the debate stew.

In fact, for those interested in the Readers Digest verison, here's the official one-page Federal Court summary of the decision.
So, next speculative tea-leaf reading to throw out there:  is SNC-Lavalin going to take this to the next court level? 

According to the Federal Court's info-machine, next stop would be Federal Court of Appeal.

:pop:
 

Attachments

  • CourtFlowChart.JPG
    CourtFlowChart.JPG
    76.5 KB · Views: 73
Haggis said:
Gerald Butts was pressed by the Justice Committee to back up the 9,000 jobs at risk claim.  He could not.

I'm not surprised. Damage is done though with everyone believing and repeating that figure.


SNC's quite the company.

OTTAWA — New details have emerged about Quebec engineering giant SNC-Lavalin’s cozy relationship with the son of former Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, including the company allegedly hiring prostitutes for him during a visit to Canada a decade ago
Receipts gathered during an investigation of a former SNC-Lavalin executive show $30,000 in payments to Saadi Gadhafi for sexual services in Canada in 2008, La Presse reported. The documentation can now be revealed publicly because the prosecution of Stéphane Roy, former vice-president of SNC-Lavalin, on fraud and bribery charges was dropped last week due to court delays.

In 2008, Gadhafi was ostensibly travelling to Montreal and Toronto to conduct business and improve his English, at the invitation of SNC-Lavalin. He had helped the company secure billions in public contracts in Libya — thanks also to millions in bribes to Libyan officials, the RCMP has alleged — and visited Canada on three previous occasions. But he spent much of his time on other extracurricular pursuits, according to La Presse’s reporting.
The bodyguards handled Gadhafi’s expenses and provided receipts to SNC-Lavalin, according to court testimony by an RCMP investigator. Transactions they wrote in as “companion services” in their expense reports would cost between $600 and $7,500 each. Close to $10,000 in services went to a single escort service in Vancouver. Other payments went to a Montreal strip club and covered events at the Air Canada Centre in Toronto, such as box seats for a Spice Girls concert.
The investigation showed that SNC-Lavalin was writing off the expenses as associated with construction projects in Libya, La Presse reported, with the total bill for Gadhafi’s trip totalling nearly $2 million.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/snc-lavalin-paid-for-gadhafi-sons-debauchery-while-he-was-in-canada-report


 
Jarnhamar said:
I'm not surprised. Damage is done though with everyone believing and repeating that figure.

Just like the Liberal's oft repeated and thoroughly debunked claim that "50% of crime guns are domestically sourced".

Joseph Goebbels would be proud.
 
Jarnhamar said:
From what I've read "9000" jobs aren't at stake if snc gets barred from federal contracts.
There is still a ton of provincial contracts they can bid on that are big money.
They are still involved in federal and provincial projects that won't be completed for a few years.
They're still involved in contract negotiations for a bunch of contracts.

The 9000 jobs lost is a bullshit a statement as all their anti-gun crap.

Construction workers change employers all the time. They go where the work is.
If SNC is unable to bid on government contracts, other Canadian companies will win and fulfill the contracts.
The only SNC job losses will be in the HQ building in Montreal. The real workers aren't lost jobs either, they'll just go where the money is.

Canadian construction is a bucket of water. If you take out a cup of SNC participation, it doesn't leave a hole.

The 9,000 job losses is a lame duck to distract from the issue. It's a false narrative. Fake news, so to speak.

As for angry Shiela, she making it abundantly clear why she's no longer sitting in government.
 
There is corruption everywhere. Taking home the pens from work is stealing from your employer. Minor in nature though. The question is “what level of corruption are we going to tolerate?”

And I won’t say what I think of Shrill Sheila....
 
I think her tweet has to be the lowest thing I've ever read in Canadian politics....
 
Back
Top