Jody Wilson-Raybould & Jane Philpott: Where do they go politically from here?

353 posts / 0 new
Last post
robbie_dee

I would assume the Nanaimo Ladysmith result may have been enough to scare off JWR and Philpott from joining the NDP. Will they join the Greens? IDK. I think JWR could probably win her seat as a Green, or as an independent for that matter. She just has to decide what fits best with her long term strategy.

I'm not so sure about Philpott in Markham. She might be better off switching to provincial politics, or for that matter just leaving politics for a while and going back into medicine. After the Liberals are defeated this fall and Trudeau is ousted as leader, doors in the Liberal Party may open again.

Misfit Misfit's picture

JWR is a Liberal. She could just wait out this election and when the Liberals are defeated and a new leadership opens up, JWR can return to politics.

robbie_dee

If JWR's long term goal is to return to the Liberal Party and possibly become leader, she could still run as an "independent Liberal" this election and probably win her riding. There's still probably a lot of people in that party who are pissed off at her though who would stand in her way. If JWR joins the Greens they might make her leader right now. But she probably won't see a cabinet position again, much less the PM's chair, unless its as part of a coalition government.

Pondering

She could spend some time learning French. Take over after Trudeau. He may last another 4 or 8 years but very unlikely farther than that. 

robbie_dee
Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Unionist wrote:
I thought Pondering's point was pretty straightforward. She said, "JWR isn't entirely against as she has used it." - referring to A-G directives to prosecutors. Not a very profound point IMHO, but she made her point. I don't recall JWR (or anyone on her behalf) professing that all directives by A-Gs to prosecutors are unacceptable. But certainly, the impression has been left by some partisans that any order from any cabinet minister (who also happens to be an A-G) to any crown counsel would constitute improper interference in the judicial process. Pondering has simply confirmed that that is not the case.

The issue raised by Pondering is a red herring.

IMO the only relevant issue in Lavscam is that the actions of Trudau, Butts, Wernick et all comstituted a violation of "independent" role of the A-G.

On legal matters where the A-G is to make a decision, others in government should not try to influence the decision of the A-G in any way. That they did is the scandal.

That Trudeau's preferred decision may be doable in no way negates the scandalous nature of his interference in a legal decision by the A-G!

Pondering

Left Turn wrote:

Unionist wrote:
I thought Pondering's point was pretty straightforward. She said, "JWR isn't entirely against as she has used it." - referring to A-G directives to prosecutors. Not a very profound point IMHO, but she made her point. I don't recall JWR (or anyone on her behalf) professing that all directives by A-Gs to prosecutors are unacceptable. But certainly, the impression has been left by some partisans that any order from any cabinet minister (who also happens to be an A-G) to any crown counsel would constitute improper interference in the judicial process. Pondering has simply confirmed that that is not the case.

The issue raised by Pondering is a red herring.

IMO the only relevant issue in Lavscam is that the actions of Trudau, Butts, Wernick et all comstituted a violation of "independent" role of the A-G.

On legal matters where the A-G is to make a decision, others in government should not try to influence the decision of the A-G in any way. That they did is the scandal.

That Trudeau's preferred decision may be doable in no way negates the scandalous nature of his interference in a legal decision by the A-G!

It was not a red herring. Trudeau and the rest are guilty. There is no doubt. There is no need to continue trying to convince anyone of it. They are guilty. It is not a red herring to look at the actions of the other participants. I had previously wondered if JWR was against using that power in general. When I discovered she has used it in the past I posted to show it wasn't so. 

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

JKR

Maybe a new thread should be started titled “using racist settler language as an insult”?

Debater

I don't see Wilson-Raybould or Philpott ever having a future in the Liberal Party.  When you get removed from caucus not just because of the leader but because a majority of your own colleagues think you have damaged the party, it's very difficult to come back.  I don't think they will ever run for Liberal leader.

voice of the damned

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

Maybe the term "indigenous nobility" isn't racist, if it just means someone born into a hereditary leadership position, but what was the relevance of bringing the term into the discussion here? Did someone defend her actions on the SNC-Lavalin file by saying she was indigenous nobility?

Pondering

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

Maybe the term "indigenous nobility" isn't racist, if it just means someone born into a hereditary leadership position, but what was the relevance of bringing the term into the discussion here? Did someone defend her actions on the SNC-Lavalin file by saying she was indigenous nobility?

No, I brought it into the conversation because it seems that JWR actions and words must not be examined or questioned in any way even if it is prefaced by a statement of Trudeau's utter and complete guilt. I think if JWR were a white man his actions would be up for discussion. I don't believe people should be penalized for their race or their sex and indeed deserve special protection but not to this extent. 

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Pondering wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

Maybe the term "indigenous nobility" isn't racist, if it just means someone born into a hereditary leadership position, but what was the relevance of bringing the term into the discussion here? Did someone defend her actions on the SNC-Lavalin file by saying she was indigenous nobility?

No, I brought it into the conversation because it seems that JWR actions and words must not be examined or questioned in any way even if it is prefaced by a statement of Trudeau's utter and complete guilt. I think if JWR were a white man his actions would be up for discussion. I don't believe people should be penalized for their race or their sex and indeed deserve special protection but not to this extent. 

Pondering, I'm against Trudeau removing JWR from the Liberal caucus for taping the Michael Wernick convo because IMO the Michael Wernick convo should never have happened. It was part and parcel of the inappropriate interference  into the independence of the A-G. And I would feel the same way even if JWR was a white man.

Pondering

Left Turn wrote:

Pondering wrote:

voice of the damned wrote:

Pondering wrote:

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

That Trudeau and team are guilty does not mean JWR should never be questioned because she is indigenous nobility. 

WTF Why is this racist settler language on babble. Please Pondering think before you type.

I've heard the term used before. Why do you say it is racist? She was born to a hereditary chief who told Pierre Trudeau that she wanted to be PM someday. I'm willing to learn, I just don't see it as racist. 

Maybe the term "indigenous nobility" isn't racist, if it just means someone born into a hereditary leadership position, but what was the relevance of bringing the term into the discussion here? Did someone defend her actions on the SNC-Lavalin file by saying she was indigenous nobility?

No, I brought it into the conversation because it seems that JWR actions and words must not be examined or questioned in any way even if it is prefaced by a statement of Trudeau's utter and complete guilt. I think if JWR were a white man his actions would be up for discussion. I don't believe people should be penalized for their race or their sex and indeed deserve special protection but not to this extent. 

Pondering, I'm against Trudeau removing JWR from the Liberal caucus for taping the Michael Wernick convo because IMO the Michael Wernick convo should never have happened. It was part and parcel of the inappropriate interference  into the independence of the A-G. And I would feel the same way even if JWR was a white man.

I agree. That makes Trudeau guilty, Wernick guilty, Butts guilty. It doesn't make JWR a saint.  One has nothing to do with the other. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

It made her a target for standing her ground. And Pondering, your remark was racist and irrelevant to the discussion.

kropotkin1951

Pondering JWR has served at a national level in elected positions both in the H of C and in the Assembly of First Nations. I find it quite objectionable to say that one must state that the women in this story is not a saint. She is deserving of our respect for standing up to improper advances by powerful men. In your opinion if we don't denounce her as less than a pillar of virtue then we are doing a disservice to all those privileged white men

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

It made her a target for standing her ground. And Pondering, your remark was racist and irrelevant to the discussion.

Yes, it made her a target for standing her ground. No one is claiming otherwise. Everyone from Trudeau and his entire team are guilty.

I believe that in this thread JWR is practically being deified. I think that is happening not only because she is indigenous, but also because she is female and comes from an illustrious family. I agree that she is a wonderful person. Has done fabulous things. I don't care if she is the Queen of England or a Goddess or the Prime Minister. No one should be immune from questioning. 

PS to make sure I am understood, I was referring to her position literally. She is indigenous nobility in more ways than one. Not only by birth to a chief but also by her own achievements as an indigenous woman who is automatically working against the odds. 

kropotkin1951

Pondering wrote:

PS to make sure I am understood, I was referring to her position literally. She is indigenous nobility in more ways than one. Not only by birth to a chief but also by her own achievements as an indigenous woman who is automatically working against the odds. 

Pondering put the fucking shovel down you are just digging your hole deeper. Your ignorance of the particulars of her culture is on full display. Please do some basic research before you make such outrageous statements. Also the idea that a successful indigenous woman is such a rarity that it makes them "nobility" is the most full on racist statement I have read on this board in a very, very long time. Your noble savage bullshit is disgusting.

 

Pondering

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Pondering wrote:

PS to make sure I am understood, I was referring to her position literally. She is indigenous nobility in more ways than one. Not only by birth to a chief but also by her own achievements as an indigenous woman who is automatically working against the odds. 

Pondering put the fucking shovel down you are just digging your hole deeper. Your ignorance of the particulars of her culture is on full display. Please do some basic research before you make such outrageous statements. Also the idea that a successful indigenous woman is such a rarity that it makes them "nobility" is the most full on racist statement I have read on this board in a very, very long time. Your noble savage bullshit is disgusting.

 

I believe I have been on this board long enough to be judged sincere.  This isn't something I could look up by googling racism. You are so stuck-up it is no wonder the right is on a winning streak. You are your own worst enemies. 

kropotkin1951

I did not question your sincerity and in fact I tried to be nice. Your statement is racist and feeds into some of the prevalent stereotypes of indigenous women. You might want to reflect on your privilege as a settler and think twice about talking about the most discriminated against group in Canadian society until you educate yourself, lack of education is no excuse for being ignorant.

NorthReport

Philpott and Wilson-Raybould and the Liberals are done with each other.

Unless she secures the Conservative nomination I doubt Philpott will get re-elected in her riding. And regardless, do you really think these 2 women want to sit in the opposition back benches? They are probably done with federal politics. They both have bigger fish to fry in their respective lives than spin their wheels in a no-win situation for them.

Pondering

I do think it is much more difficult for women and for indigenous people to have careers as illustrious as JWR's. Intersectionality acknowledges how people can be doubly handicapped. Some people have to work a lot harder to make it than others due to prejudice and other factors. For that reason when people from those communities make it big their communities consider them role models and are protective of them. I'm surprised you don't know about that. 

No community or group considers David Lametti a role model in the way JWR is for indigenous women. If it were David Lametti who did what JWR did all the while declaring himself a Liberal people here would be questioning his role. 

Earlier in this thread I questioned if JWR was against using the power she had in all cases or if it was only this particular case because if it was that she was against the directive power in general then that wouldn't be a valid reason to refuse it for SNC. I had wondered this because she said specifically that she didn't want her name in the Gazette over it. 

I discovered that she has used the directive in a different case therefore she isn't against directives in general so I came back to say so. 

In both cases I've been attacked not because it is so outrageous to question the actions of a Liberal Justice Minister but because that minister is an indigenous woman. Just my opinion of course. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

If it were David Lametti who did what JWR did all the while declaring himself a Liberal people here would be questioning his role. 

Earlier in this thread I questioned if JWR was against using the power she had in all cases or if it was only this particular case because if it was that she was against the directive power in general then that wouldn't be a valid reason to refuse it for SNC Lavelin.

I discovered that she has used the directive in a different case therefore she isn't against directives in general so I came back to say so. 

In both cases I've been attacked not because it is so outrageous to question the actions of a Liberal Justice Minister but because that minister is an indigenous woman. Just my opinion of course. 

[/quote]

 

Point One: No one would question any AG because the AG in SNC Lavelin did nothing wrong.  Quit reducing this to a race and gender issue!!! And quit imagining how people would react to this if it were not JWR.

point two: it was never appropriate to use the directive for SnC Lavelin. People have submitted all kinds of articles which discuss this very issue and you are stuck on refusing to avknowledge that reality.

Most people herr on babble try to learn from what other people say and share. You live in a little bubble and no one can reach you. You are a stuck record that refuses to grow. 

 

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

If it were David Lametti who did what JWR did all the while declaring himself a Liberal people here would be questioning his role. 

Earlier in this thread I questioned if JWR was against using the power she had in all cases or if it was only this particular case because if it was that she was against the directive power in general then that wouldn't be a valid reason to refuse it for SNC Lavelin.

I discovered that she has used the directive in a different case therefore she isn't against directives in general so I came back to say so. 

In both cases I've been attacked not because it is so outrageous to question the actions of a Liberal Justice Minister but because that minister is an indigenous woman. Just my opinion of course. 

 

Point One: No one would question any AG because the AG in SNC Lavelin did nothing wrong.  Quit reducing this to a race and gender issue!!! And quit imagining how people would react to this if it were not JWR.

point two: it was never appropriate to use the directive for SnC Lavelin. People have submitted all kinds of articles which discuss this very issue and you are stuck on refusing to avknowledge that reality.

Most people herr on babble try to learn from what other people say and share. You live in a little bubble and no one can reach you. You are a stuck record that refuses to grow. 

 

[/quote]

As far as I know people on babble didn't discuss JWR's reasoning with her so I don't see how anyone here can speak for her. Their case is still being considered. They may yet get a DPA. Lametti certainly knows more than anyone on this board so I think I will take his legal opinion over the opinion of posters. 

It's just an opinion, but I don't agree with you on this not being a race and gender issue. I can't imagine any other politician being immune from being asked questions about an event they were and are central to. It is ridiculous. I haven't even accused her of anything other than being a Liberal which she loudly professed herself. 

quizzical

i think i will take the word of the original prosecutor who made the no DPA decision  which JWR backed up.

it amazes me how Quebecers as represented by pondering are just fine with corruption and besmirching people to protect SNC-Lavalin. 

cco

This Quebecer isn't, nor are most of the Quebecers I know. It bears repeating. Saying Quebecers are "just fine with corruption" because 5% fewer Quebecers than Ontarians want SNC-Lavalin to go on trial is as unfair as saying British Columbians are "just fine with climate change" because a slim majority support the Kinder Morgan expansion (depending on which poll you believe). It's a stereotype, and it's one I'm going to continue to push back against. We're not a monolith of cackling mobsters eagerly sucking the blood from hard-working English Canadians, no matter how invested Jason Kenney is in perpetuating that image.

Pondering

Punishing SNC Lavalin is like punishing a chair. It couldn't care less because it is an object. A company is an object. Executives are people. Critics appear fine with the fact that executives walked away without a trial and with all their millions under JWR's watch. Maybe it isn't the job of the AG or MoJ to know what's happening with important trials that could time out but if not the AG's responsibility than whose?  This isn't a new problem. 

In July 2016 the Supreme Court set limits on the length of time allowable before going to trial. At that time someone should have been checking which trials needed to be addressed urgently before they timed out.  Did no one do that? If not why not? Was no one told to do it? Did someone disobey? Did the SNC executive trial not seem important enough or was it overlooked? 

Besmirching people implies saying something about bad about them that isn't true. Questioning (not accusing) is not besmirching someone. Examining someone's political record is not besmirching.  

If I commit a crime, please punish my location for it and ignore me and my bank account.  

quizzical

cco thought i was narrowing it down to pondering type of people. 

pondering bs asking negatively skewed questions is besmirching.

like if i looked at a guy in a group of people and said "are you a rapist too?"  what's the group going to think?

stop trying to play us for fools .

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Punishing SNC Lavalin is like punishing a chair. It couldn't care less because it is an object.

Corporations are more than just a chair.  And they're more than just the sum of their specific parts (people), too.

Disney is pretty well known for being aggressively litigious in defending its copyright, even against the smallest of businesses and individuals.  That's not because of a few specific lawyers in their legal pool, and it's not just the diktat of one CEO.  If you removed a handful of lawyers, and a few Directors and managers, the Disney corporation would continue to be litigious because it's part of the company now, not something specific to a few individuals in it.  Have you heard the term "corporate culture"?  Chairs don't have a corporate culture, but corporations do.

By your thinking, we should still be able to find and prosecute "the real criminals" from SNC-L without too much problem because having left SNC-L for another job, they'll bring their larceny with them and make some new company start bribing Libyans and suchlike, and similarly we'll see that SNC-L is now clean as a whistle.  The same way that when a mafia kingpin is arrested, that puts and end to organized crime.

swallow swallow's picture

quizzical wrote:

it amazes me how Quebecers as represented by pondering are just fine with corruption and besmirching people to protect SNC-Lavalin. 

Quebecers on this board are not represented by pondering. As she would agree, she represents herself. 

If you must say “people like pondering,” please say that instead. 

As for JWR never being criticized, her name has been dragged through the mud for months. She is far from immune to criticism. Quite the opposite. 

I don’t think the concept of “nobility’ as understood in Europe even exists among many Indigenous peoples of this continent. 

Pondering

quizzical wrote:

cco thought i was narrowing it down to pondering type of people. 

pondering bs asking negatively skewed questions is besmirching.

like if i looked at a guy in a group of people and said "are you a rapist too?"  what's the group going to think?

stop trying to play us for fools .

I haven't even asked any questions. I just posted to indicate that JWR is not opposed to using directives. I definitely didn't ask questions in an incriminating manner.  You are doing exactly what I said happens here. Defensiveness so extreme that to ask a question results in the poster being attacked. 

Swallow, she is not only immune to criticism on this board she is immune from even being questioned. To suggest that JWR is not perfection incarnate is to invite personal attack. 

For example, if I ask the question "why didn't JWR complain directly to Trudeau after September?"  This is considered a harsh attack and defence of Trudeau. That is ridiculous. 

I should have said "royalty" not "nobility" as in "PK Subban is hockey royalty."  That is not an insult. Referring to JWR as either indigenous royalty or nobility is not racist. It is saying she is very high ranking within her community. That isn't racist. 

This board is the way it is because people jump at the first opportunity to criticize and attack posters including each other. 

Misfit Misfit's picture

Pondering wrote:

”For example, if I ask the question "why didn't JWR complain directly to Trudeau after September?" “

How do you know that she didn’t and many times??? You were not working in the AG office and you were not working in the PMO. You are assuming far too much. No one can debate one who resorts to hypothetical assumptions. And yet you are using this imaginary issue to attack JWR.

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Quote:

Swallow, she is not only immune to criticism on this board she is immune from even being questioned. To suggest that JWR is not perfection incarnate is to invite personal attack. 

For example, if I ask the question "why didn't JWR complain directly to Trudeau after September?"  This is considered a harsh attack and defence of Trudeau. That is ridiculous.

I can't speak for others here, but I certainly don't consider JWR "perfection". She's made many decisions with which I disagree. For starters, I think that neither marijuana legalization law, or the assisted dying law, go far enough.

However, I do believe that once she told Trudeau on September 17 that she wasn't going to grant SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution, that should have been the end of it. Trudeau, Butts, Wernick et all should not have had any further discussions with her about it. Her decision should have been viewed as beyond being questioned.

All the conversations that Trudeau, Butts, Wernick et all had with JWR about SNC-Lavalin were improper interference into the independent nature of the office of A-G. As was removing JWR from said office, because it seems clear to me that the motivation for said move was to put someone else in as A-G who would be more open to overturning JWR's decision and grant SNC-Lavalin a deferred prosecution.

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Punishing SNC Lavalin is like punishing a chair. It couldn't care less because it is an object.

Corporations are more than just a chair.  And they're more than just the sum of their specific parts (people), too.

Disney is pretty well known for being aggressively litigious in defending its copyright, even against the smallest of businesses and individuals.  That's not because of a few specific lawyers in their legal pool, and it's not just the diktat of one CEO.  If you removed a handful of lawyers, and a few Directors and managers, the Disney corporation would continue to be litigious because it's part of the company now, not something specific to a few individuals in it.  Have you heard the term "corporate culture"?  Chairs don't have a corporate culture, but corporations do.

By your thinking, we should still be able to find and prosecute "the real criminals" from SNC-L without too much problem because having left SNC-L for another job, they'll bring their larceny with them and make some new company start bribing Libyans and suchlike, and similarly we'll see that SNC-L is now clean as a whistle.  The same way that when a mafia kingpin is arrested, that puts and end to organized crime.

Corporate culture is created by people. If a new CEO were hired and told all the lawyers to not be aggressively litigious in defending copyright they would obey or be fired. Corporate culture would change.

Having had the threat of trials hanging over their heads for years I imagine the fired excutives who walked away with their millions will be more careful in future but I doubt they will have more scruples. I'd love to know what they are doing now. I wonder if they are executive elsewere or if they have board of director seats. 

I think the idea of breaking SNC up into separate companies might be helpful. To me the heavy focus on punishing the company is providing a shield for the actual criminals who walked away. Nobody is outraged over that. It barely rated a mention in the papers. No pudits weighed in asking how this could happen. 

https://www.cbc.ca/radio/day6/episode-430-snc-lavalin-in-court-revisionist-oscars-elliott-abrams-google-built-cities-rupaul-and-more-1.5027926/why-quebec-lawyers-are-struggling-to-prosecute-former-snc-lavalin-executives-1.5027950

Roy was first charged in 2014 with fraud over $5,000 and bribing a foreign public official in Libya. His case wouldn't reach trial until this May — a 64-month wait.

"The judge said what happened was an example of a reflection of the culture of complacency in the federal prosecutors office," said Montreal-based Canadian Press reporter Giuseppe Valiante.

Isn't that the same office that is refusing the DPA for the company? 2014 to 2019. Whose responsibility is it to ensure that office is being run effectively? Is anyone in charge of tracking major cases? Are major cases just tossed in the general scheduling pile? Judges are involved in granting delays and prosecutors in requesting them. Why did the delays happen? Was the judge on vacation?

Why so lax on punishing the actual criminals and so insistent on punishing the company which has changed leadership and presumably is not currently bribing anyone. 

Why does English Canada want blood? Is it because it's a Quebec company?  Would everyone be so eager if it were an oil company in Alberta?

Bacchus

Yes Pondering, I believe they would. I know I would

Left Turn Left Turn's picture

Pondering wrote:
I think the idea of breaking SNC up into separate companies might be helpful.

I'd prefer to nationalize SNC-Lavlin and have the government perform the engineering and construction work itself rather than pouring public money into corprate profits. It's called socialism. Not that our current federal government would go anywhere near this idea.

Pondering wrote:
To me the heavy focus on punishing the company is providing a shield for the actual criminals who walked away. Nobody is outraged over that. It barely rated a mention in the papers. No pudits weighed in asking how this could happen.

Sure it bothers me that those who commited the actual crimes at SNC-Lavlin are not being punished.

I'm also of the opinion that corporations commit unethical acts on a daily basis as part and parcel of their existence. So my anger about those who committed the crimes at SNC-Lavlin gets diffused out among my anger at corporate culture in general (by which I mean the culture that exists in every corporation, sanctioned in law, that prioritizes shareholder profits above every other consideration). Only so much anger to go around.

The issue of whether to grant SNC-Lavlin a deferred prosecution is a different kettle of fish. Our laws give sole responsibility for this decision to the A-G. Our laws also stipulate that the functions of the A-G are to be carried out free from political interference. When political interference in the decisions of the A-G takes place, as it has in the SNC-Lavlin case, I'll stand with the A-G, thank you. My opinion on the merits of the case have no bearing on my decision to support JWR over Trudeau. Neither does JWR's identity have any bearing on it.

Pondering wrote:
Why does English Canada want blood? Is it because it's a Quebec company?  Would everyone be so eager if it were an oil company in Alberta?

My take is that many people have come to the conclusion that JWR's decision to not grant a deferred prosecution is the correct decision. Most appear to have done so based not on the merits of the case, but rather a reflexive decision to support JWR's position because Trudeau intervened unethically in what is supposed to be an independent decision of the A-G, to try and get said decision changed.

Bacchus wrote:
Yes Pondering, I believe they would. I know I would

What Bacchus said.

Pondering

Left Turn wrote:

​I'd prefer to nationalize SNC-Lavlin and have the government perform the engineering and construction work itself rather than pouring public money into corprate profits. It's called socialism. Not that our current federal government would go anywhere near this idea.

 

That would be even better but failing that breaking it up has been suggested. 

Left Turn wrote:
​Sure it bothers me that those who commited the actual crimes at SNC-Lavlin are not being punished. 

But no one is interested in discussing it. I think that is because the pundits aren't discussing it. I've brought it up on several occasions. To me there is a direct connection between the cases. Why was the federal prosecutor so lax on prosecuting the executives yet now wants to throw the book at the company? 

I think one thing people are skipping over is that this is like a "sentencing" in the sense that it is not black and white. The prosecutor has a range of options to choose from and uses a degree of judgement in deciding which one to choose. 

Left Turn wrote:

I'm also of the opinion that corporations commit unethical acts on a daily basis as part and parcel of their existence. So my anger about those who committed the crimes at SNC-Lavlin gets diffused out among my anger at corporate culture in general (by which I mean the culture that exists in every corporation, sanctioned in law, that prioritizes shareholder profits above every other consideration). Only so much anger to go around.

 

That's why in my opinion the focus should be on taking actions to prevent this sort of thing rather than using a scapegoat as a shield. The CEOs and executives won't be paying a nickel of that. Taxpayers will pay the fines. I really don't see the point of that. It accomplishs absolutely nothing. It isn't even a deterrent to anyone. 

Left Turn wrote:
  When political interference in the decisions of the A-G takes place, as it has in the SNC-Lavlin case, I'll stand with the A-G, thank you. My opinion on the merits of the case have no bearing on my decision to support JWR over Trudeau. Neither does JWR's identity have any bearing on it.

Same here. I have said in practically every single post that Trudeau and team are all guilty. JWR was right. The interference was inappropriate. 

No one seems capable of getting beyond that fact to examine how it was possible and not illegal and maybe, this is the shocker, that even if JWR was correct, notice, JWR correct, Trudeau and team are guilty. that doesn't mean she couldn't have handled the situation differently from an administrative point of view. 

Left Turn wrote:
​My take is that many people have come to the conclusion that JWR's decision to not grant a deferred prosecution is the correct decision. Most appear to have done so based not on the merits of the case, but rather a reflexive decision to support JWR's position because Trudeau intervened unethically in what is supposed to be an independent decision of the A-G, to try and get said decision changed.

Exactly people are so blinded by Trudeau's guilt they are incapable of looking at any other aspect of the case. Any questioning about how it all came about is considered an attack on JWR but details can't be discussed without bringing her into it as she was a central figure. 

I've read that JWR should have reported to the ethics commissioner in September. I am not sure that I agree with that but it would be impossible to even discuss the matter here because that would be construed as attacking JWR which results in everyone blindly chanting Trudeau Guilty as if I had said otherwise. 

I've read that the fact that she is both Justice Minister and AG matters because it is appropriate to say things to the Justice Minister but not to the AG. This is also something that can't be discussed here because it is interpreted as defending Trudeau. 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Punishing SNC Lavalin is like punishing a chair. It couldn't care less because it is an object. A company is an object.

A company really isn't an onject. Among other things it's a collection of personalities. I'd would even suggest "companies" have their own culture and personality. Firing a couple bosses or leaders isn't going to erase the accepted norm that the company has operated in for years. Tricky task to change a companies entire culture. In SNCs case it's a culture of getting away with breaking the law. "Everyone else does it". "It's normal". "How much to make this go away".

In a work place it seems like safety concerns don't get addressed until someone dies. I'd argue it's somewhat the same in a situation like this only instead of someone dying the company as a whole needs to be held accountable. Not just a couple leaders who move on with fat bank accounts and juicy pensions but everyone in the company.

Is the person in the mail room responsible for, or involved with, the high rollers bribing officials in Lybia? No. But the mail room employees still get their monthly pay from the same pay office.

Pondering wrote:

 

If I commit a crime, please punish my location for it and ignore me and my bank account.  

If the location you work for enables you to commit crimes and supports a culture of unethical behavior then they should be punished along with you.

 

Pondering

Misfit wrote:

Pondering wrote:

”For example, if I ask the question "why didn't JWR complain directly to Trudeau after September?" “

How do you know that she didn’t and many times??? You were not working in the AG office and you were not working in the PMO. You are assuming far too much. No one can debate one who resorts to hypothetical assumptions. And yet you are using this imaginary issue to attack JWR.

Because she testified that that was the last conversation she had with Trudeau directly about SNC. I very much doubt she left anything out when testifying to the committee. I suppose it is possible they spoke on other issues but if so and she failed to speak to him about the inappropriate actions of his staff that suggests she didn't consider it that serious at the time. For that reason I assumed the last time she had an opportunity was in September or she would have mentioned it to the committee. 

It isn't an attack on JWR. It is an attack on Trudeau or more specifically how PMOs are run. Apparently the PMO is much larger than in the past. 

This is from JWR's letter to caucus before she was ejected:

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2019/04/02/jody-wilson-raybould-caucus-letter_a_23704984/

We committed to break old and cynical patterns of centralizing power in the hands of a few unelected staffers, the marginalization of hundreds of Members of Parliament with expertise and insights to offer, and the practice of governing in the shadows, out of sight of Canadians. 

This is an issue JWR herself recognized but not one that she priorized.  GASP, OH MY GOD was that a criticism! Man the ramparts! TRUDEAU IS GUILTY. TRUDEAU IS GUILTY. TRUDEAU IS GUILTY. 

Serious discussion of events is impossible when politics is treated like a team sport that requires cheerleading for your side so no criticism can be acknowledged. JWR has been sanctified. Her every move is perfection itself. She is the one Holy Liberal in the history of Liberals. 

Pondering

Paladin1 wrote:

A company really isn't an onject. Among other things it's a collection of personalities. I'd would even suggest "companies" have their own culture and personality. Firing a couple bosses or leaders isn't going to erase the accepted norm that the company has operated in for years. Tricky task to change a companies entire culture. In SNCs case it's a culture of getting away with breaking the law. "Everyone else does it". "It's normal". "How much to make this go away".

They didn't just fire a couple of bosses and reform has been happening for a half decade. The people involved are long gone. Prosecuting the company won't do a thing to change "company culture" at SNC Lavalin or any other company because to do business in those countries requires bribery. You won't get the contract to build the bridge in Iraq without greasing a few palms and no I don't have proof of that. 

Bribery is normal in ALL companies doing business with dictatorial regimes and a lot of democratic ones too. If we hadn't invaded Libya it would still be going on because we have no oversight. We are not serious about stopping bribery and neither are other countries. We jumped on the bandwagon with DPAs we didn't invent them. 

I would bet my very last cent that international oil companies in Alberta that are also doing business with dictatorial regimes are paying out bribes. Any oil companies discovered paying bribes or seriously breaking environmental laws should be locked of of doing business in Alberta. Do you agree Paladin?

cco

Why even bother having laws? We can just subordinate everything to the demands of international capital and shrug our shoulders at the world being corrupt, obliging us to be equally corrupt. For jobs!

Pondering

cco wrote:
Why even bother having laws? We can just subordinate everything to the demands of international capital and shrug our shoulders at the world being corrupt, obliging us to be equally corrupt. For jobs!

Just the opposite. We need effective laws and oversight. We have neither. We need to follow the money. 

We need to get out of industries that require corruption, like the arms industry. We need to fully re-examine how we approach trade and what really benefits us as opposed to benefiting international corporations. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNC-Lavalin

SNC Lavalin has over 50,000 employees worldwide with offices in over 50 countries and operations in over 160 countries. According to their 2017 annual report their four key sectors are infrastructure, mining and metallurgy, oil and gas, and power; each sector offers services in each sector that include design, studies, consultancy, financingasset managementengineeringconstructionprocurement and operations and maintenance.[7] Their infrastructure sector provides services from financing, building and maintenance. Their oil and gas sector includes upstream, midstream, and downstream projects across the lifecycle. Operations include mass transit and heavy rail systems, highwaysbridgesairports and marine facilities, as well as industrial, commercial, cultural and healthcare buildings. Mining and metallurgy sector offers services to projects of any size or complexity including "mining commodities, fertilizers, and sulphuric acid facilities". Their power sector provides services in environment and water, the transmission and distribution of energy, hydro powernuclear power, renewables and thermal power generation, energy from waste, electrical power delivery systems", and "clean and sustainable power technologies".[7]

There are only 9,000 of 50,000 employees in Canada. Barring SNC from Canadian federal contracts is not going to hurt SNC Lavalin as a whole. It isn't going to stop them from paying bribes through other branches of the company. Sure they still want Canadian contracts and moving thousands of jobs will cost them but it will do nothing to reduce bribery overall. 

Putting executives in prison would. 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Barring SNC from Canadian federal contracts is not going to hurt SNC Lavalin as a whole. It isn't going to stop them from paying bribes through other branches of the company. Sure they still want Canadian contracts and moving thousands of jobs will cost them but it will do nothing to reduce bribery overall.

What?

I thought you were pretty certain that the "bad apples" are long gone.  Where would this new larceny come from??

Pondering

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Barring SNC from Canadian federal contracts is not going to hurt SNC Lavalin as a whole. It isn't going to stop them from paying bribes through other branches of the company. Sure they still want Canadian contracts and moving thousands of jobs will cost them but it will do nothing to reduce bribery overall.

What?

I thought you were pretty certain that the "bad apples" are long gone.  Where would this new larceny come from??

Do you think barring them from Canadian federal projects will have any impact other than moving thousands of jobs out of Canada? Having read what they do and their size on Wiki I don't see them giving up on multi-billion dollar deals that require greasing palms do you? Especially as no executive had to pay a price.

Even so I am fairly certain that current executives in Canada are being careful not to do anything that can put them in prison. The ones in other countries can arrange payments. 

If we want to prevent massive international corporations from bribing officials in non-democratic countries this is not the way to do it. It will take international action and oversight. 

 

Mr. Magoo

Quote:
Having read what they do and their size on Wiki I don't see them giving up on multi-billion dollar deals that require greasing palms do you?

They do seem remarkably persistent when it comes to breaking the law.

But again, you do seem to be simultaneously insisting that the "bad apples" are gone now so we shouldn't punish the company AND that the company is sure to keep breaking the law.

Quote:
The ones in other countries can arrange payments.

If they do then I hope the government doubles down on the punishment.  Sooner or later it just won't make fiscal sense any more, just like how parking illegally to save $12 stops making sense if you know you'll get a $110 ticket for it.

Michael Moriarity Michael Moriarity's picture

Mr. Magoo wrote:

If they do then I hope the government doubles down on the punishment.  Sooner or later it just won't make fiscal sense any more, just like how parking illegally to save $12 stops making sense if you know you'll get a $110 ticket for it.

Quite so, but there needs to be consistent enforcement as well. In your example, if I discover that the mean time between tickets is 10 days or more, parking illegally begins to look attractive again.

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

A company really isn't an onject. Among other things it's a collection of personalities. I'd would even suggest "companies" have their own culture and personality. Firing a couple bosses or leaders isn't going to erase the accepted norm that the company has operated in for years. Tricky task to change a companies entire culture. In SNCs case it's a culture of getting away with breaking the law. "Everyone else does it". "It's normal". "How much to make this go away".

They didn't just fire a couple of bosses and reform has been happening for a half decade. The people involved are long gone. Prosecuting the company won't do a thing to change "company culture" at SNC Lavalin or any other company because to do business in those countries requires bribery. You won't get the contract to build the bridge in Iraq without greasing a few palms and no I don't have proof of that. 

Bribery is normal in ALL companies doing business with dictatorial regimes and a lot of democratic ones too. If we hadn't invaded Libya it would still be going on because we have no oversight. We are not serious about stopping bribery and neither are other countries. We jumped on the bandwagon with DPAs we didn't invent them. 

I would bet my very last cent that international oil companies in Alberta that are also doing business with dictatorial regimes are paying out bribes. Any oil companies discovered paying bribes or seriously breaking environmental laws should be locked of of doing business in Alberta. Do you agree Paladin?

I agree that anyone guilty of breaking the laws should be punished properly up to and including being barred from doing business in Lybia or Alberta.

You're response to me is basically saying it's okay to break the law because everyone does it. I don't buy that.

As Mr Magoo pointed out in one breath you're saying all the bad apples are gone. In the next you're pointing out how they'll go on breaking the law.  Obviously the half decade of reconstruction didn't mean anything.

How do we do business in countries were illegal bribery is the norm? Easy, we don't.

Pondering

No I don't think it is okay and yes I do agree we shouldn't do business in non-democratic countries in which bribes must be paid to do business. We shouldn't sell armoured cars to Saudi Arabia. 

As long as we are doing those things it is hypocritical to pretend that by throwing the book at one company we are going to change anything. Start putting executives in prison. If anything will change behavior that will. 

Paladin1

Pondering wrote:
We shouldn't sell armoured cars to Saudi Arabia.

While I agree we shouldn't, those are seperate issues.

Pages