Rue

We do have our share of idiots lol. Jerry and David Lewis. That was a joke. I love comedians.

It means little. Individuals come and go but their offices precede and proceed them. The people that occupy them in the big picture mean very little. Sometimes a Churchill or an Alexander or Napoleon may briefly make a noise but in the big picture that River flows no matter who is on a raft going up or down stream. Netanyahu has had accusations of corruption follow him for many years. Israeli politics are very dirty. No different than nywhere else in many respects. Maybe it's why he likes Donny so much. She Barack was taken down. Maybe Netanyahu. The justice system will take him down if there is any truth to the rumours..it's slow but it works. From what I see his wife and family may have taken gifts. He himself it's hard to know. Political favours probably but actual money I doubt it. You can't spend money in Israel on yourself and not have it show. It is too small a country not to have it stick out like a sore thumb. It's probably more along the lines of political favours on deals to keep him in power. Coalition governments in proportional representative democracies tend to create that. It's very similar to Italy in that sense.

That was dumb as hell. Go find out where Jews come from and where Palestinians come from. Stop repeating what you are to!d without questioning it. By the way your response for someone who clearly hates Jews then denies it less than a sentence later is ridiculous. Figure out what it is you think you are representing. If you wanna play Wahabi warrior don't in the next breath tell people you are a victim of misunderstanding and don't hate Jews. Have the balls to admit you do.. Terrorists aren't misunderstood victims and neither are anti Semites hiding behind the word Zionism then switching to the word Jew a sentence later. Also no Saudi would deny where Jews come from. Lol get back to me when you your voice changes. Someone give him 10 million dollars. He's just a kid until he sits next to you on a bus or plane of course. Kaboom. This ain't no game people. It's one of the downsides of multiculturalism and youth brought up to follow and not question. God bless the cell phone.

Problem is people do not study history or realize what causes wars so we get these Wahabi Wannabees writing in like they are experts because they want so desperately to pretend to be warriors. Ironically these wannabeez haven't a clue what Beduins are and why they spit on these Wahabi wannabeez. Saudi my ass. I lived for a week with a bunch of Beduins. They were the best of Israeli soldiers.

If lobbying was done above board it should be public when done. That's why it's done behind closed doors most times making it a form of bribery and questionable influence peddling. Lobbying is essentially today the problem particularly when idiots like Trudeau don't understand it's implications and how it can be a direct threat to rule of law and democratic principles. For Lavalin to have lobbied like it was able to when other lobbyists must be registered Android do not have the same access is another issue these genius liberals can't grasp.

You seem to forget Jews, Romas, Jehova's Witnesses, 7th Day Adventists, righteous gentiles, socialists, homosexuals, communists were not crippled and mentally feeble and were murdered en masse for what they were perceived to be. In the case of Jews and Romas we were perceived as inferior races. For the Christian groups I mentioned, they were wiped out for not swearing an allegiance to Hitler. For communists and socialists it was political beliefs, and for righteous gentiles, it was because they chose to be humans and die being human and putting a life of another before their own, the most noble of actions one can do. On one level one death is to many. I would hope you do not get into a pissing contest adding up the no. of deaths of Ukrainians, Armenians, Jews, as a way to measure moral deficiency. They all are equally as immoral for the same reasons. I am not sure what has happened with your generation but it is clear we do not spend enough time explaining history to you. Cannuck is also right in the sense here in Canada Philip Rushton not to long ago tried to resurrect a theory that the size of one's skull defined their iq and he defined based on this blacks as the stupidest, then whites in the middle and Asians on the top. This idiocy was debunked by neurologists but it wasn't too long ago the Clarke Institute was founded named after a doctor who believed this. Genetics as a means to define race has been proven ridiculous. Race was a social construct originally used to classify people subjectively by such traits as lip shape and size, hair texture, amount of melatonin in the skin, nose shape. Such traits were secondary ones. Biology proved a person with white skin and a person with dark skin could have more in common genetically than two people with white skin or two people with dark skin. Next there are actual photos of every variation of human facial feature and they have been placed in a computer and there is not one people anywhere in the world who can accurately be defined as a distinct people by genetics based on their nose shape, lip size, skin colour, hair texture. Also when all variations of human were placed in a computer they came out looking like Jennifer Lopez interestingly or Disney's cartoon Pacahontas. Its time we teach the next generation what genetics is and what history is and what ethics is. Teaching them about Mao, Hitler, Stalin, and what happened in those countries as well as Armenians, aboriginals in South and North America, would be a good start. We seem destined to repeat our behaviours of the past. I also would caution what Konrad Lorenz proved and that is its easier to have a war against people you subjectively feel do not look like you then ones that do. Most wars that are lengthy are between peoples who look physically different. We also in the West collectively, don't react to non white deaths in war or tragedy as we do white ones and that is not racism, its human nature. People who look the same identify more with people who look like them. Its primal behaviour. As homo sapiens we are more attune with our pack members (people who look like us) than those simeons in other packs (different fur colour or butt structure if you are a chimp or baboon, skin colour if you are a human).

I think ceremonies to commemorate the dead after tragedies is healthy and helps some obtain closure. Don't mix that positive good up with a politician exploiting every tragedy he sees for personal gain. Yes human cruelty is universal but if we forget it, if we don't remember it and learn from it then what? Sorry but I think if we remember such mistakes, we can prevent future ones like them from happening again.

Its a cynical and deliberate exercise. He cries at many events. Its supposed to make people like him and vote for him. We have a neutral non partisan Governor General to attend such events precisely so politicians can not exploit them for personal voter gain. Trudeau shows up because he loves to focus the attention on his tears. The GG and Indian Affairs Minister could have showed up.

I don't like platitudes. Crying for me is meaningless crap. I want to see concrete proposals to prevent such things from happening again and as I stated, I would prefer the non partisan Governor General rep. Canada at such ceremonues not the PM of the day crying on cue to exploit the tragedy to try resurrect his image.

You and most people don't give a shit and that is a shame if for no other reason if you lose your ability to care then what does that make you?. Well an insensitive shit maybe, but I don't really care if you care or not how sensitive you are or are not. What I do care if many people feel just like you and so make it easier for politicians who do not care to get elected. For God's sake man, caring about others is not that hard. I hate people and I prefer dogs and animals to any human but common man, you would want someone to care about you if you needed help who you kidding...just extend the same courtesy back. It won't kill you or anything like that.

Queen do not get me wrong. I think its a dark period of history. I just think the person doing the crying is exploiting the incident to try save his reputation. He also made sure when SNC hit to rush off to Halifax and cry at a funeral for Syrian refugees from a fire. Politicians should not exploit such events in my opinion. This is why we have a non partisan Governor General as head of state who should be sent.

After reading the above, I will say the same about you and I am not too concerned what ethnicity you are. By the way rejoice. Aboriginal people are committing mass suicide.

The crying is a tad repetitive isn't it.

No sex you say Egghead? Lol, I am sure JWR feels she was phacked over By Justin and finds him hard to swallow. Sorry I could not resist.

Eye I think most people see the attached ceremony as meaningless and assume all politicians lie and influence peddle as a normal course of affairs. I think any naive belief in politicians went the way of JFK. MLK, RFK and then Nixon. I believe these 4 events were pinnacle in sucking out any remaining belief in politics and since then good people have turned their back on politics believing it can not be run honestly, ever. I would say we lost any collective spiritual connection to things bigger than us as individuals and slipped into a world of me want what is good for me and to hell with anyone else. For me Trudeau shows he can not understand how to balance the needs of the victims of the corrupt dictators Lavalin enabled dictators to injured and cure with his need to get re-elected. That is a classic elitist who can not conceive a world of interests outside his own. It is a shame a leader of a country can't grasp the damage Lavalin has done to innocent third parties and thinks people who profit from crimes are more important than victims of crime. It's wrong what he did or any other politician does if they do the same thing. I was once a Liberal and renounced it after Chretien's became no different than Mulroney in patronage schemes. I have not in my life seen anyone able to rise above the swamp of political mud. It doesn't mean though we give up. Look it's true if we monitor politicians there are practical limitations and it could be used for the wrong reasons. Lobbying is not all bad. It can be used to enhance and raise important issues not just corrupt ones so it's a balancing act but we have to find that middle point to encourage honesty and expose dishonesty.

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.

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.

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.

The AG appointed after JWR has done an about face. He first openly stated he would not pursue a prosecution against Lavalin and bragged about how he had no problem with doing that but then suddenly became silent and back paddled when 5 former Attorney Generals spoke up and filed a legal action against the current gov. of the day. Here is the interesting thing. All we lawyers have to follow our Law Society Rules of Conduct. We can not knowingly break a law or do anything we know lends to the appearance of or creates a conflict of interest or undermines the legal system. Technically when JWR refused to be influenced she upheld the conduct of every Law Society's Code of Conduct across Canada. You will as a result not find any lawyer willing to say she was wrong. It won't happen. I think if Trudeau pushes he will NOT find a lawyer to defend what he has done. I would be surprised if it happens. Say what you want about lawyers and we have members that of course are dishonest but when a lawyer upholds the standards JWR did we have to defend her. If we do not have people like her protecting the integrity of the legal system, our profession goes down the drain. She could have easily been a sleeze and looked the other way. What she did took a lot of integrity. Trudeau has made this a political issue not her by forcing it as far as he has. He should have backed off and let the Crown engage in a plea bargain and remained arms' length. His current AG is in a state of paralysis. He knows he can not implement the dpa the Liberals snuck through. It provides sentencing considerations that violate and contradict s.718 of the Criminal Code and so would be challenged at the Supreme Court of Canada and be thrown out. S.718 is an open ended list of criteria but those criteria can not be ignored or undermined. The criteria of economic fall out from a sentence is not a criminal sentencing criteria. It can't be, that would mean any criminal who employs people should get a more lenient sentence. That is absurd.

Yes that is a legal fact. So are indigenous cultures and values constitutionally protected.

More to the point and Statistics Canada can show you, the majority in Canada was and is (other than aboriginal people) majority Catholic.

You are of course right. It was and remains majority Catholic by a wide margin especially in Canada. Our buddy lives in a neo Nazi fantasy world.

Canada was never a Wasp nation. It was and remains a majority Catholic nation.

The Crown refers to what exactly? Do you mean Canadian government because that is not the Crown. The Crown is used to describe the head of state. The head of state is figurative. Tell me what Canadian tax money goes to Queen Liz. That would be news to me. If you are questioning whether the federal government wastes money of course it does. So do you. Its a problem of course. Don't act like its stolen from you. I am sure you steal as much as is stolen from you. Your playing victim of the state is something everyone does and feels. However when you do need medical care, an ambulance, the fire department, they will be there. Don't tell me you didn't go to school, use any roads, flush your toilet ever. Your country that you piss on is not perfect but compared to other countries and their degrees of corruption and inefficiency you have no clue how good you have it. You need to travel and go work for a relief organization. You smell of privilege in your comments. Its easy to piss on a country whose services you take for granted as a given.

To start with no comparing their freedom of speech to what you have in Canada its not the same. No they can not speak out openly against the government in a certain way. Can you? Seriously. You think your media is not controlled by the government of the day or special interest groups that prevent free discussion? Really? You so sure? Billionaire communists? Really? Name them. The privileges exist such as access to medicine, alcohol, sex not money. You really need to look at what constitutes privilege in Cuba. Billionaires? Yah right. Where does the money come from? Get real. You have any idea what kind of clamp down is on the Cuba economy? Clearly not. You claim poverty in Cuba. Compared to who? Canada? Do you have any idea that the poorest of people in Cuba still eat better than the poorest of Canadians? Go find out. Yah they have a shortage of aspirin, shampoo, soap, sanitary napkins, fresh beef or pork, but they have fruit and certain vegetables and they manage to feed everyone and treat them. Their poor have better education than the poor in Canada. It is absurd to compare the poverty level in Cuba and Canada. You are trying to measure them by material values, values such as t.v.'s, cars, house size, furniture, things Cubans don't place the same values on. Tell me who has more musicians? Who has more artists, scientists per population? Go find out. Cuba is by far perfect. Their is corruption. There is prostitution. There are problems yes. But its not the nightmare bullshit state you define it as. Cubans don't need your analysis. They can live without your flat screened TV's and suv's. Their athletes, the vast majority of them stay home, they don't leave when they can, likewise their doctors and intelligentsia. Freedom of speech denied? Get back to me and ask me what happens in our political parties when you disagree with your leader..