Trudeau lying about SNC

[Centerpiece]

We now know that SNC Lavalin has a corporate reputation for bribery - not only in Libya but in many other countries - to the extent that they are blacklisted by the World Bank, preventing their participation in any project that they sponsor around the world. We also know that they illegally donated over $100,000 to the Liberal Party - money that forcibly had to be returned (they also illegally donated $8000 to the Conservatives). We also know that they are perhaps the most aggressive lobbyists in Canadian history. Would it really be that much of a stretch to think that SNC influenced the Liberal Party through the back door by making donations to the Trudeau Foundation?

[Rue]

No one should be spinning their Liberal butt cheeks over this one. Its clear as  hell. The Liberals only wanted a fine with SNC because they were worried a criminal sentence of executives could cause a stock collapse of SNC and they were also  worried anything but a fine could prevent SNC from getting fed contracts and force it to go bankrupt.,We all get it. SNC is a large employer in Quebec. Politically if the company collapsed it would be a disaster for Liberals in Quebec trying to get re-elected especially Lord Justin of Truedough.

So there was pitter patter in Judge Jody's office and a suggestion she go along with the fine and clearly she did not.

For her not to toe the line should be no surprise. She is aboriginal and like most aboriginals in office feels Trudeau has made a fool of aboriginals in the federal portfolio with all his fake promises with nothing to show. He raised hopes and expectations like the little peacock he was during his honeymoon phase pandering to anyone who would take a photo op with him and the promises he spit out rapid fire were bound to go nowhere.

She clearly was not going to run again and feels pissed off at Justin poo over many things not just SNC. That said he is not nor will he be the last PM who sends his minions to bend the law and make a mockery of it because of political votes.

This man has shown himself to be a political whore literally giving the country a blow job bending each way the wind blows so to speak.

Now he's finding his own act hard to swallow and he's choking on it as he was bound to do.

SNC Lavalin is a result of a government thinking its above the law no different than the message it sent over Kadr, about illegal immigrants, about going on vacation with people lobbying the government for funds. This is Trudeau, born in a world where no one said no to him. He's a soft boy with no limitations ever taught to him and taking responsibility for his mistakes is not something he was taught as witnessed by his pathetic attempt to blame everything on Judge Jody.

He's done on this one. No amount of spin and no amount of him ignoring questions in Parliament are going to help and neither is his pathetic attempt  at dumping his decisions on people who have resigned. There was a time a politician accepted responsibility for their decisions, not this slip and slide vasoline Prime Minister.

In any event its a gift for Schneer who now has a lightening rod he can use . The joke is watching Jagmeet Singh trying to jump on the band wagon.

here's the thing

about Jagmeet Singh

its a little to late

for him to  contemplate

how to hoo haw at Lord Justin

when his beard needs a good feather dustin

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Rue

[Zeitgeist]

Trudeau may be done because of this, but in that case, so is every PM who tries to lead.  Welcome to the new Puritanism, where opinion is coersion.  We may believe that Trudeau told Wilson-Raybould that the decision was hers, but he committed the crime of disagreement.  Trudeau might have been baited, but no one will come to his rescue, for the same reason no one will host the Oscars.  If you have so much as a blemish, you must face the judges at Salem, McCarthy’s committee, the Spanish Inquisition, and the guillotine.  Everything old is new again.  

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trudeau may be done because of this, but in that case, so is every PM who tries to lead.  Welcome to the new Puritanism, where opinion is coersion.

 

Not so fast....Trudeau's mistake was turfing her because she did take a stand, then he tried to cover it up. 

The cover up always causes more political damage....very old and not new at all.

[Zeitgeist]

2 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Not so fast....Trudeau's mistake was turfing her because she did take a stand, then he tried to cover it up. 

The cover up always causes more political damage....very old and not new at all.

Since when does the PM have to explain shuffling an MP into another portfolio?  The PM has that discretion.  Everyone knows Trudeau will lose this argument.  Asking him, “Are you directing me?”  was brilliant.  She felt uncomfortable.  Bad coercive man.  

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Since when does the PM have to explain shuffling an MP into another portfolio?  The PM has that discretion.  Everyone knows Trudeau will lose this argument.  Asking him, “Are you directing me?”  was brilliant.  She felt uncomfortable.  Bad coercive man.  

 

When it happens because of specific policy conflict that was in the minister's wheelhouse.

Or do you think it was just a coincidence that SNC-Lavalin was at risk for prosecution and 10 year ban on contracts ?

Trudeau's wounds are clearly self inflicted.

[Zeitgeist]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

When it happens because of specific policy conflict that was in the minister's wheelhouse.

Or do you think it was just a coincidence that SNC-Lavalin was at risk for prosecution and 10 year ban on contracts ?

Trudeau's wounds are clearly self inflicted.

I think Trudeau presented the argument that most Canadians would support, that a 10 year suspension of SNC would destroy the company and people’s lives.  He probably talked about what other countries are doing to consequence companies without hurting thousands of workers.  Then, appreciating that it is the Justice Minister’s final decision how to proceed, he told her the decision was hers.  When he realized that she would decide in a way that would hurt Canadian workers, he probably thought, “This minister is not acting in the country’s interests and shouldn’t be in charge of such an impactful portfolio.  As the executive I’m making an executive decision in the country’s interest and shuffling her out of the portfolio.”  Such is his right.  This is guess work, but that’s what I think happened.  We’ll see what comes out.  

Edited February 20, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

7 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Trudeau presented the argument that most Canadians would support, that a 10 year suspension of SNC would destroy the company and people’s lives.  He probably talked about what other countries are doing to consequence companies without hurting thousands of workers.  Then, appreciating that it is the Justice Minister’s final decision how to proceed,..... We’ll see what comes out.  

 

See, that's the beginning of the Trudeau's troubles.   He set the stage for "fairness and feminism" in his rhetoric and minister choice....Trudeau appointed her !   Then tried to hide the conflict after the fact instead of just being quite direct about the matter going back to the omnibus funding legislation for DPA.

The underlying "aboriginal" minister issue is just more bad icing on a bad cake that Trudeau (and Butts) baked.

Edited February 20, 2019 by bush_cheney2004

[Zeitgeist]

9 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

See, that's the beginning of the Trudeau's troubles.   He set the stage for "fairness and feminism" in his rhetoric and minister choice.   Then tried to hide the conflict after the fact instead of just being quite direct about the matter going back to the omnibus funding legislation for DPA.

The underlying "aboriginal" minister issue is just more bad icing on a bad cake that Trudeau (and Butts) baked.

Governments often have to respond to unexpected events such as the Lavalin bribery.  The PM can whip votes in line with his or her position and doesn’t have to have a free vote.  The PM can shuffle and remove MP’s from cabinet.  Wilson-Raybould ran afoul of the PM and was shuffled out of her big portfolio.  Wilson-Raybould asked the PM if she was being directed and the PM said she was not.  End of story.  Thank God for the omnibus bill that might save 50000 workers’ jobs.  Also thankful that Wilson-Raybould is out.  This isn’t about gender or ethnicity.  It’s about the public interest.  

Edited February 20, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, Zeitgeist said:

Governments often have to respond to unexpected events such as the Lavalin bribery.  The PM can whip votes in line with his or her position and doesn’t have to have a free vote.  The PM can shuffle and remove MP’s from cabinet.  Wilson-Raybould ran afoul of the PM and was shuffled out of her big portfolio.  Wilson-Raybould asked the PM if she was being directed and the PM said she was not.  End of story.  Thank God for the omnibus bill that might save 50000 workers’ jobs. 

 

That's fine....but Trudeau will still have to wear it.    Trudeau is the PM who appointed Wilson-Raybould in the first place for his own political virtue signaling reasons that has now come back to bite him in the ass.

SNC-Lavalin would survive in some form or another just like any other busted corporation.

God had nothing to do with it.

[Zeitgeist]

1 minute ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

That's fine....but Trudeau will still have to wear it.    Trudeau is the PM who appointed Wilson-Raybould in the first place for his own political virtue signaling reasons that has now come back to bite him in the ass.

SNC-Lavalin would survive in some form or another just like any other busted corporation.

God had nothing to do with it.

Figure of speech.  I agree that Trudeau invites controversy. He started this politically correct reign of terror and will go to the guillotine like Robespierre.  

[bush_cheney2004]

Just now, Zeitgeist said:

Figure of speech.  I agree that Trudeau invites controversy. He started this politically correct reign of terror and will go to the guillotine like Robespierre.  

 

As well he should...if he really worships at the PC/Feminist alter like he says he does.

There will be an election to determine his fate.....but lots of fun watching him twist in the wind until then.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Trudeau may be done because of this, but in that case, so is every PM who tries to lead.  Welcome to the new Puritanism, where opinion is coersion.  We may believe that Trudeau told Wilson-Raybould that the decision was hers, but he committed the crime of disagreement.  Trudeau might have been baited, but no one will come to his rescue, for the same reason no one will host the Oscars.  If you have so much as a blemish, you must face the judges at Salem, McCarthy’s committee, the Spanish Inquisition, and the guillotine.  Everything old is new again.  

I have no idea what you're talking about. Tries to lead? On this issue? You think covering up for a corporation because it will help your political fortunes is leading?

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

Since when does the PM have to explain shuffling an MP into another portfolio?  The PM has that discretion.  Everyone knows Trudeau will lose this argument.  Asking him, “Are you directing me?”  was brilliant.  She felt uncomfortable.  Bad coercive man.  

It seems clear, given his expressed priorities of gender equality and indigenous outreach, that taking her out of Justice and dumping her into Veteran's Affairs was a clear statement of his dissatisfaction with her - over something no one was able to point out. Then comes the article suggesting the PMO pressured her to give special, favoured treatment to a big company that happens to donate  a lot of money to Liberals, and whose protection will help Liberal political fortunes in Quebec. No one has been able to really but that article. No one has even really tried. Instead they've been running around like headless chickens.

If you don't understand how pulling her from Justice to substitute with a more friendly Quebec minister who will 'do the right thing by our friends' is an obstruction of justice, and quite possibly illegal, then I really don't know how to explain it to you.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, Zeitgeist said:

I think Trudeau presented the argument that most Canadians would support, that a 10 year suspension of SNC would destroy the company and people’s lives.

Sending someone to prison for ten years would likely have the same impact. Does that mean we shouldn't punish criminals?

SNC Lavalin is a shit company with a long history of illegality. Its demise will cost few jobs. All it does is bid on various projects, all of which will still be available to be bid on by others. The same number of people will have to do those jobs, with or without SNC Lavalin. They'll just be working for other companies.

Edited February 20, 2019 by Argus

[Zeitgeist]

56 minutes ago, Argus said:

Sending someone to prison for ten years would likely have the same impact. Does that mean we shouldn't punish criminals?

SNC Lavalin is a shit company with a long history of illegality. Its demise will cost few jobs. All it does is bid on various projects, all of which will still be available to be bid on by others. The same number of people will have to do those jobs, with or without SNC Lavalin. They'll just be working for other companies.

 

58 minutes ago, Argus said:

It seems clear, given his expressed priorities of gender equality and indigenous outreach, that taking her out of Justice and dumping her into Veteran's Affairs was a clear statement of his dissatisfaction with her - over something no one was able to point out. Then comes the article suggesting the PMO pressured her to give special, favoured treatment to a big company that happens to donate  a lot of money to Liberals, and whose protection will help Liberal political fortunes in Quebec. No one has been able to really but that article. No one has even really tried. Instead they've been running around like headless chickens.

If you don't understand how pulling her from Justice to substitute with a more friendly Quebec minister who will 'do the right thing by our friends' is an obstruction of justice, and quite possibly illegal, then I really don't know how to explain it to you.

I agree that the optics aren’t good if the Liberals received large donations from SNC, yet it’s clear that Wilson-Raybould isn’t acting in either the Liberal Party’s or the country’s interests.  Fine the company for bribery and move on.  This quagmire is emblematic of the kind of petty grievances that have made this government so ineffective.  Other than legal pot, what does Trudeau have to show for his “reaching out”?  He brought someone in whom it turns out he couldn’t trust.  This has echoes of the late Chrétien-Martin fissure.  No doubt Wilson-Raybould will have her followers and no one will believe Trudeau, who coerced this poor rookie MP who will probably run for Liberal leadership and eventually try to be a PM. She’s wonderful and he’s done?

Edited February 20, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[scribblet]

Trudeau.........making Canada safe for corruption again

[Zeitgeist]

5 hours ago, scribblet said:

Trudeau.........making Canada safe for corruption again

Not at all.  Make SNC pay but don’t destroy it.  Halliburton and others paid their fines and will scoop up Lavalin’s contracts with the blessings of foreign governments.  Let’s not be naive. 

[cannuck]

On 2/19/2019 at 7:33 PM, Zeitgeist said:

I think Trudeau presented the argument that most Canadians would support, that a 10 year suspension of SNC would destroy the company and people’s lives. 

The lives will be destroyed because Trudeau and SNC chose to do business in Canada illegally.

Reality is, as has been mentioned, the same jobs will get done by the same people, just with different employers.  There is no shortage of legitimate engineering companies in Canada who are quite willing and able to pick up the slack.  If you and the rest of the LPC had any shred of ethics at all, you would realize that by letting SNC get away with bribery and kickbacks up the ying yang, they/you are denying jobs and profits to companies who choose to do business legally.

[Michael Hardner]

2 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The lives will be destroyed because Trudeau and SNC chose to do business in Canada illegally.

Reality is, as has been mentioned, the same jobs will get done by the same people, just with different employers.  There is no shortage of legitimate engineering companies in Canada who are quite willing and able to pick up the slack.  If you and the rest of the LPC had any shred of ethics at all, you would realize that by letting SNC get away with bribery and kickbacks up the ying yang, they/you are denying jobs and profits to companies who choose to do business legally.

Well said !

[Zeitgeist]

6 minutes ago, cannuck said:

The lives will be destroyed because Trudeau and SNC chose to do business in Canada illegally.

Reality is, as has been mentioned, the same jobs will get done by the same people, just with different employers.  There is no shortage of legitimate engineering companies in Canada who are quite willing and able to pick up the slack.  If you and the rest of the LPC had any shred of ethics at all, you would realize that by letting SNC get away with bribery and kickbacks up the ying yang, they/you are denying jobs and profits to companies who choose to do business legally.

First off, screw the Liberal Party of Canada. Second, not true that there are many engineering firms that work on the scale of SNC.  Who do you think will pay the costs of all those canceled infrastructure contracts when SNC goes bankrupt?  Taxpayers.  Jobs aren’t as portable as you think.  The demise of SNC would hurt thousands of workers.  

Edited February 21, 2019 by Zeitgeist

[cannuck]

9 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

First off, screw the Liberal Party of Canada. Second, not true that there are many engineering firms that work on the scale of SNC.  Who do you think will pay the costs of all those canceled infrastructure contracts when SNC goes bankrupt?  Taxpayers.  Jobs aren’t as portable as you think.  The demise of SNC would hurt thousands of workers.  

Every jobsite that SNC has been kicked off of has had someone come in and replace them with barely a hicough.   Tell me which job they have now that is so big that Hatch, Golder or Stantec could not do?

I should point out as well that many times when SNC picks up a job, they hire foreign engineers to fill the positions - thus why their level of incompetence and ultimately getting thrown off of jobs.

Edited February 21, 2019 by cannuck

[Zeitgeist]

10 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Every jobsite that SNC has been kicked off of has had someone come in and replace them with barely a hicough.   Tell me which job they have now that is so big that Hatch, Golder or Stantec could not do?

I should point out as well that many times when SNC picks up a job, they hire foreign engineers to fill the positions - thus why their level of incompetence and ultimately getting thrown off of jobs.

Yes but SNC is the largest Canadian player.  Think of it another way, the more mileage you drive the greater the chance of having an accident.  With the high volume of work and number of countries where SNC operates, there will be more problems than a small player would have.  If SNC is such a rotten apple, then perhaps a kind of anti-trust monopoly breakup is needed, but I think that would probably create bigger problems.  

[cannuck]

2 minutes ago, Zeitgeist said:

Yes but SNC is the largest Canadian player.  Think of it another way, the more mileage you drive the greater the chance of having an accident.  With the high volume of work and number of countries where SNC operates, there will be more problems than a small player would have.  If SNC is such a rotten apple, then perhaps a kind of anti-trust monopoly breakup is needed, but I think that would probably create bigger problems.  

No need to do any anti-trust nonsense, just prosecute them for the crimes they have committed.

[Zeitgeist]

Just now, cannuck said:

No need to do any anti-trust nonsense, just prosecute them for the crimes they have committed.

But again, what is a reasonable consequence?  Destroying the company?