# Leave it to Rex!



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

Rex Murphy, that is. thought I'd share this.... which I think hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned:

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/re...udeau-you-owe-this-country-a-real-explanation


edit:_fatuously _ 
Also found in: Thesaurus, Legal, Wikipedia.
fat·u·ous (făch′o͞o-əs)
adj.
Foolish or silly, especially in a smug or self-satisfied way.


----------



## Beaver101 (Nov 14, 2011)

^ Well, have you taken any drama classes? Let alone teach that.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

well...some might say that...but its not Tru-dough....


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

Love that Rex. His erudition makes some people feel he's being a little pompous. But in this semi-literate age it's a joy to read, or hear, someone who can use the English language so well.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

lovely ... a refreshing antidote to the deflection-boot licking i hear at the cbc ...


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

in case some people don't know...he's a native NL-er (ahem!), and a Rhodes scholar...


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

jargey3000 said:


> Rex Murphy, that is. thought I'd share this.... which I think hits the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned:
> 
> https://nationalpost.com/opinion/re...udeau-you-owe-this-country-a-real-explanation


Thanks for sharing.

Rex's previous column is a scorcher too.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/rex-murphy-the-trudeau-virtuecrats-come-tumbling-down


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

jargey3000 said:


> in case some people don't know...he's a native NL-er (ahem!), and a Rhodes scholar...


It kind of baffles me that Rex has become a die hard Conservative, espousing all their policies and views, including a column last year heaping praise on Stephen Harper.

And yet in 2015 the Liberals won every riding in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador. They won all 32 ridings by large numbers as well.

It would appear that Rex's personal views no longer represent the views of the majority of people living in Atlantic Canada.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

huh?

he's a columnist...
why should his opinions represent the views of the people of any area, any more than views of, say andrew coyne?...or christie blatchford? ...or any other scribe...? representing the views of the people from wherever they hail?


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

I had the same reaction as jargon. As far as I have noticed Rex is an equal-opportunity critic of stupidity and bad behaviour in governments of any political stripe. In response to sags' odd remarks, I did some quick searching, and there are some on-line screeds claiming he is a "closet conservative/liberal/socialist". It seems if he writes a critique of any party, some of their lap-dogs will immediately rebut his opinion by claiming he is secretly "one of the enemy", rather than offer any substantive counter-argument. He was not exactly kind to Harper when he was in power; and he actually ran for the Liberals in his 2 failed attempts at running for office. 

So where is the evidence he is a die-hard Conservative? Furthermore, why should he represent the views of the majority of people living in Atlantic Canada? He's not an elected official. He is an opinion-writer. God help us when column writers can only write what the "majority opinion" is in one particular area of the country.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i always thought he was a bullshite caller outer, regardless of where the shite got dropped ...


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree the phrase "does not represent the views" was a poor choice of words. A more accurate phrase would be "does not share the views".

As far as Rex's political leanings, it is readily apparent from his articles that regardless of his past political affiliation, his more recent articles espouse the PC party agenda.

In July 18 he wrote an article praising Stephen Harper, which is at odds with the results of the 2015 election. He has also written pro-conservative articles on abortion, conservative judges, pipelines, climate change, evolution and other matters.

I think Rex makes it pretty clear what his political leanings are and good for him. He is entitled to his opinions and to write about them, but he certainly couldn't claim to have a progressive philosophy.


----------



## jargey3000 (Jan 25, 2011)

_I agree the phrase "does not represent the views" was a poor choice of words. A more accurate phrase would be "does not share the views"._

I'll take that as an apology... my trust in you was beginning to "erode".....:subdued:


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> It kind of baffles me that Rex has become a die hard Conservative, espousing all their policies and views, including a column last year heaping praise on Stephen Harper.
> 
> And yet in 2015 the Liberals won every riding in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, PEI and Newfoundland and Labrador. They won all 32 ridings by large numbers as well.
> 
> It would appear that Rex's personal views no longer represent the views of the majority of people living in Atlantic Canada.


It seems in your zeal to post something to spin positive vs. the REX article you've missed the obvious. Where you're from doesn't dictate how you write. Citizens deserve and expect variety of opinion since there is also a large number of people in Atlantic Canada who did not make the mistake of voting for Mr Trudeau. Thankfully there are many including Rex that have been writing recently about the highly questionable behaviour of this leader and much of his government including even the privy council clerk.

I find it ironic Mr Trudeau is so highly motivated and finds it easy to travel the country to apologize for past injustices and inappropriate government behaviour, but when it comes to his own mistakes, incompetence and questionable ethics surrounding SNC he finds it impossible to do the same. MacLeans seem to have nailed it when they call him The Imposter, and for many other valid reasons.


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

To me its become apparent that Trudeau can't offer an apology of any substance re SNC-JWR because that would be tantamount to admitting wrongdoing. 
That would confirm an attempt at political interference in a criminal trial.
I am convinced they will never cross the line to admitting wrongdoing.
I have doubts that they will be so bold as to have Lametti direct the prosecutor now that this has blown up in their face. That would be adding gasoline (sorry ev buffs) to the fire. Back in early January though I think that was their game plan.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> To me its become apparent that Trudeau can't offer an apology of any substance re SNC-JWR because that would be tantamount to admitting wrongdoing.
> That would confirm an attempt at political interference in a criminal trial.
> I am convinced they will never cross the line to admitting wrongdoing.
> *I have doubts that they will be so bold as to have Lametti direct the prosecutor now that this has blown up in their face. That would be adding gasoline (sorry ev buffs) to the fire. Back in early January though I think that was their game plan.*


federal court has now struck down snc's request for review and now we wait to see what lametti will do

i bet it is likely that he will try to find well disposed and friendly third parties to plead the case for a dpa (in return for what we don't know) and will go ahead with it

i hope i am wrong and you are right ...


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> To me its become apparent that Trudeau can't offer an apology of any substance re SNC-JWR because that would be tantamount to admitting wrongdoing.
> That would confirm an attempt at political interference in a criminal trial.
> I am convinced they will never cross the line to admitting wrongdoing.
> I have doubts that they will be so bold as to have Lametti direct the prosecutor now that this has blown up in their face. That would be adding gasoline (sorry ev buffs) to the fire. Back in early January though I think that was their game plan.



I agree. It would force him to admit wrong doing and take the hit for it all. Although I did read an interesting take on how to have approached it very differently. https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ot...politics&sfi=4d0471ab269920a862b6559a901eb231

I'm 50/50 on Lametti doing this. They might be so bold and arrogant to play that card.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

If you are going to read only one more piece on SNC Lavalin, make it this one. The author is a former Crown prosecutor.

The hidden key to the SNC-Lavalin scandal
https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/08/analysis/hidden-key-snc-lavalin-scandal


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> If you are going to read only one more piece on SNC Lavalin, make it this one. The author is a former Crown prosecutor.
> 
> The hidden key to the SNC-Lavalin scandal
> https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/08/analysis/hidden-key-snc-lavalin-scandal


thank you for the lovely blow by blow account of just how dirty snc-lavalin really is, excuse me while i go the bathroom and refund my dinner

i especially like the line: "Notwithstanding that Canada's DPA legislation is recent (*even suspiciously rushed*), its terms and origin are well established in the international setting." .... (there is something more here that we aren't seeing)

it really puts a lie to the trudean facade of ethical standards esecially with regards to women

he never stops apologizing but it's never for anything he has done, it's always something someone else has done

he's an empty suit, a fraud and an imposter and is apparently surrounded by a group of drooling, tongue wagging yes men ... 

but thankfully for us not so many yes women


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I am shocked and outraged that SNC Lavalin paid bribes. It isn't like their competitors and many Fortune 500 companies paid bribes to get contracts.......or maybe they did.

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=companies+that+paid+bribes

A study of businesses showed that 85% of their managers paid bribes in foreign countries. I would think that would include almost every business sector.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jwebb/...trading-in-developing-economies/#39fc7e663d03

It looks to me like no bribes = no work. That is how capitalism in the real world works.

The US has a DPA and uses it for almost every SEC bribery case concerning their businesses, but it isn't like our companies have to compete with them or anything.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

A key point you selectively left out is "developing countries" when you represented that as the "real world". Parts of the world have greater problems than others. The world would be a better place if people weren't greedy and corrupt. Unfortunately this seems to be a reality throughout history, whether you're talking capitalism or not. 

It seems with your posts you're taking a backhanded route to rationalizing SNC's behaviour and the misguided, unethical behaviour of Trudeau and his lieutenants on this affair. 

If I'm not mistaken your employmant earnings and your pension was/is paid through capitalism. Do you feel dirty?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I accept capitalism for what it is and it should be noted that SNC is alleged to have paid bribes in Libya, a despotic and corrupt regime where bribes were the currency of the day.

I would also wonder how far people would expect our government to go to "punish" such evil doings, beyond significant fines.

As an example, the Shell oil company is currently defending themselves in a criminal trial in Madrid, Spain. It is touted as the biggest bribing scandal in history.

Should they be convicted of bribery and corruption in their dealings in Nigeria, should they be punished by the Canadian government, with no access to bidding on contracts, obtaining permits, or expecting any aid from the government at all ? What would happen to their multi-billion dollar project plans ?

Perhaps the most important question is why would we castigate our own companies while the US and other countries issue fines ?

I am not opposed to capitalism. I simply recognize it for what it is. Let's be honest, it is a tough world and the meek don't get the contracts.

I am a social capitalist, acknowledging that social programs are both needed and desired, but have to be paid for which ultimately means raising taxes.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

sags said:


> I am a social capitalist, acknowledging that social programs are both needed and desired, but have to be paid for which ultimately means raising taxes.


I don't see how you can be and still support the current Liberal tribe?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I have in the past supported the NDP (Ed Broadbent and Stephen Lewis), the Conservatives (Bill Davis and an admirer from afar of Peter Lougheed) but today what choice do I have ?

The NDP has disintegrated into a party that doesn't know who they represent, the Conservatives into the Reform Party, and Elizabeth May leads a party of one.

The Liberals are the closest I can get to representing a bundle of socialist democratic capitalism.

I would bet a lot of Canadians feel the same way and wince a little when they cast their ballots.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I have in the past supported the NDP (Ed Broadbent and Stephen Lewis), the Conservatives (Bill Davis and an admirer from afar of Peter Lougheed) but today what choice do I have ?
> 
> The NDP has disintegrated into a party that doesn't know who they represent, the Conservatives into the Reform Party, and Elizabeth May leads a party of one.
> 
> ...


The Liberals are in it for the Liberals, they don't even care as long as they stay in power.
Bribes, corruption, political interference, ethical violations doesn't seem to matter. Even in this case many Liberal supporters think that interfering with a criminal trial is "the right thing to do".

That's the problem with Canadian politics, no matter what the Liberals do, they have a very strong incredibly partisan base. Ethics apparently aren't even a concern to their supporters. 
It's infuriating.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

MrMatt said:


> The Liberals are in it for the Liberals, they don't even care as long as they stay in power.
> Bribes, corruption, political interference, ethical violations doesn't seem to matter. Even in this case many Liberal supporters think that interfering with a criminal trial is "the right thing to do".
> 
> That's the problem with Canadian politics, no matter what the Liberals do, they have a very strong incredibly partisan base. Ethics apparently aren't even a concern to their supporters.
> It's infuriating.


^this ... this is the fundamental issue with the LPC, they hunger first for power and only second think about principles

they do their best to appear as though they are the opposite of donald trump but the veneer is thin ...


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

fatcat said:


> ^this ... this is the fundamental issue with the LPC, they hunger first for power and only second think about principles
> 
> they do their best to appear as though they are the opposite of donald trump but the veneer is thin ...


Exactly. GOP and LPC have turned into full-blown personality cults. Dear Leader can do no wrong. Trudeau die-hards sound eerily similar to Trump die-hards. Both groups are totally blind to overwhelming evidence. It's amusing to watch.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

sags said:


> I am a social capitalist, acknowledging that social programs are both needed and desired, but have to be paid for which ultimately means raising taxes.
> ...
> The Liberals are the closest I can get to representing a bundle of socialist democratic capitalism.


What you and other Liberal devotees don't seem to get is that growing the economy raises tax revenues without increasing the grab. Meanwhile they kill the incentive for firms to invest and wonder how they will sell the growing deficit.

The Cons will not impose a national drug program. That in itself should be enough incentive to vote for them.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

GoldStone said:


> Exactly. GOP and LPC have turned into full-blown personality cults. Dear Leader can do no wrong. Trudeau die-hards sound eerily similar to Trump die-hards. Both groups are totally blind to overwhelming evidence. It's amusing to watch.


Actually I think the situation in the US is a bit more dire. There are legitimate members of the Liberal party that are capable of considering that something is wrong and needs to be done. I think there are a LOT of good capable and considerate people in the Liberal party, they just happen to be wrong, but I can respect they actually are concerned with the lives of Canadians.
That being said I think that Trudeau and his team were never that, they wanted power and putting him in charge was wrong and the Liberals are paying for it (finally)

The US is pretty brutal, Trump has issues, but the Democrats have just gone off the deep end. Even Trump is telling the Republicans to shut up and let the Democrats talk. 
Trump didn't win the US election, the Democrats lost it, as they sat there lecturing, insulting and denigrating the ordinary citizen they alienated themselves, the sad thing is it seems obvious to everyone except them that they have it so wrong.

I honestly don't know how the Trudea saga will play out, they have their PR machine running. But I don't think we have to read too many "lets wait for all the information before rushing to judgement" before that shtick gets old.

We have 2 Senior accomplished and capable Liberals resign claiming inappropriate behaviour. JWR has reputation, skill, education, documentation, notes, records etc. Oh and she's still legally restricted on what she can talk about, and she was very clear she has more to say.

Trudeaus side says "We don't remember it that way", and his hardcore supporters agree with him.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

sags said:


> I accept capitalism for what it is and it should be noted that SNC is alleged to have paid bribes in Libya, a despotic and corrupt regime where bribes were the currency of the day.
> 
> I would also wonder how far people would expect our government to go to "punish" such evil doings, beyond significant fines.
> 
> ...


Appreciate the answer. Didn't expect what you said. I think its fair to ask those questions and have an open honest debate about it in parliament but not the shady way Trudeau Liberals have operated lately. 

RE your comments below. It seems the liberals have moved left to shore up much of the territory taken by the NDP, so even if they had a good leader, coherent platform it would be hard to get traction. I don't see Liberals doing much for capitalism. With Trudeau they're obsessed with virtue signaling and their own social justice agenda, but have been extremely hypocritical. It's very tiresome and misleading/disingenuous. For this point in time - less than 4 yrs I believe it is by far the worst government of Canada we've had since I've been voting 40+ years. Trudeau is all sizzle and no steak.


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

GoldStone said:


> Exactly. GOP and LPC have turned into full-blown personality cults. Dear Leader can do no wrong. Trudeau die-hards sound eerily similar to Trump die-hards. Both groups are totally blind to overwhelming evidence. It's amusing to watch.


I'm inclined to agree re the cult and supporters blindness. There's some kind of weird what I describe to my wife "love fest" with Trudeau & LPC fans. 

I wish I could see it as amusing here in Canada. It is more frustrating, but in fairness I am less than sure that Scheer has been able to step up enough to galvanize the kind of support Conservatives should have. I guess we'll see.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

i am afraid that though i try hard to like andrew scheer i find him depressingly bland and underpowered and no match for trudeau’s political theatre ... he at least has eclipsed mr singh but that isn’t saying much


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^Agree.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> I accept capitalism for what it is and it should be noted that SNC is alleged to have paid bribes in Libya, a despotic and corrupt regime where bribes were the currency of the day.
> 
> I would also wonder how far people would expect our government to go to "punish" such evil doings, beyond significant fines.
> 
> ...



well said


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

> Quote Originally Posted by sags View Post
> I accept capitalism for what it is and it should be noted that SNC is alleged to have paid bribes in Libya, a despotic and corrupt regime where bribes were the currency of the day.
> 
> I would also wonder how far people would expect our government to go to "punish" such evil doings, beyond significant fines.
> ...


The answer is yes. If found guilty, they should not be able to bid on future government contracts for 10 years. There are other oil companies in Canada. If the government doesn't find this works they should have the guts to propose a change in law for all business in parliament. Not have one special rule for those with insider influence (and who almost certainly donate to the Liberal party) and a second rule for all other business. Such is the basis of a fair and equitable justice system.


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

sags said:


> I accept capitalism for what it is and it should be noted that SNC is alleged to have paid bribes in Libya, a despotic and corrupt regime where bribes were the currency of the day.
> 
> I would also wonder how far people would expect our government to go to "punish" such evil doings, beyond significant fines.
> 
> ...


Why do countries fine the companies? Because they either made a DPA, or were found guilty in court. That's actually why we have such a law, to be used in appropriate circumstances. It was deemed not appropriate in this case, so it wasn't used.

You have a depressingly cynical view of the world, you think it's rampant criminal activity and that's what we have to do.
I think that's simply the problem, for all the happy talk about doing things differently, and respecting people. 
People like Trudeau don't actually believe in ethics. It's as though it's some abstract thing for the other guy, but not for "serious people" doing "really work". Sorry, but that logic leads down a dangerous path.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> If you are going to read only one more piece on SNC Lavalin, make it this one. The author is a former Crown prosecutor.
> 
> https://www.nationalobserver.com/2019/03/08/analysis/hidden-key-snc-lavalin-scandal




this ^^ is a dubious piece of dishonest journalism. The author is twisting facts to make it appear that SNC Lavalin itself is the real perpetrator of libyan dictator mohammar ghaddafi's countless acts of murder, rape & torture decades ago.

SNC did not commit those acts. Terrorist ghaddafi, his family & his paramilitary forces committed those acts. What SNC did was build gas & oil extraction plants, hydroelectric infrastructure, to benefit the libyan economy.

as everywhere with all companies carrying on business in the middle east - in fact in most parts of the world for that matter - SNC bribed libyan officials including the dictator & his family, to land those engineering contracts.

parties offended by such practices might care to look at the conduct of many canadian multinationals operating everywhere on the planet. One could start with the multi-year LAV vehicle sales from ontario to saudi arabia. Vehicles which are currently being used to kill yemeni civilians.

then the author of the above overly-excited piece makes a 2nd major mistake when she tries to chronicle the ghaddafi atrocities as if they were being committed at the present time. Her dates are all mixed up.

the SNC wrongdoings that will be the focus of the upcoming public trial in canada all took place between 2001 & 2011. Long time ago, 1-2 decades ago. They took place in libya. But note the author's use of the present tense, as if the wrongdoings were contemporary & ongoing. SNC is accused of enabling "the world's bloodiest tyrants" right now, as in today & tomorrow.

_" It is not only appropriate, but essential that this matter go to trial in an open and public hearing, so that Canadians can see how the world's bloodiest tyrants are cossetted, indulged, and enabled."_

in its own dim-witted way, this article is going to reassure the SNC team. It shows very clearly that crown prosecutors have only ordinary run-of-the-mill bribes to prosecute, Therefore, in an attempt to spice up the charges, the article shows how prosecutors will have to wander hopelessly off-track. Here is an example: the author is pretending that SNC was somehow implicated in the khaddafi Lockerbie bombing. But khaddafi bombed a pan am jet, killing 270 near lockerbie scotland, in 1988, 11 years before SNC lavalin ever went to libya. Eleven. Years. Before.

_" From the Lockerbie bombing of the 80’s, to the prison massacres, the disappearances, the tortures and football killings, the systemic rape of young girls in the 2000’s, the blood trickled down through the decades."

_

.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

deleted duplicate post

(thankx Rbull) (it was a duplicate post)


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Spidey said:


> The answer is yes. If found guilty, they ]Shell] should not be able to bid on future government contracts for 10 years. There are other oil companies in Canada. If the government doesn't find this works they should have the guts to propose a change in law for all business in parliament. Not have one special rule for those with insider influence (and who almost certainly donate to the Liberal party) and a second rule for all other business. Such is the basis of a fair and equitable justice system.



surely the above is twilight zone though

shell is not a canadian company. Shell is HQ'd in england & the netherlands. Oil wells in nigeria. Sags tells us there's a huge bribery case against Shell in spain.

what does any of this have to do with canada? why would canadians give the time of day to some cockamamie idea about spending millions $$ to try to sue Shell here in canada?


----------



## RBull (Jan 20, 2013)

^I need more coffee. I'm seeing double!!

Or is it the slowness of this forum?


----------



## Spidey (May 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> surely the above is twilight zone though
> 
> shell is not a canadian company. Shell is HQ'd in england & the netherlands. Oil wells in nigeria. Sags tells us there's a huge bribery case against Shell in spain.
> 
> what does any of this have to do with canada? why would canadians give the time of day to some cockamamie idea about spending millions $$ to try to sue Shell here in canada?


I guess I agree that it does appear like the Twilight Zone. Is that not the hypothetical question that Sags asked and that you reposted with the comment "well said"? 



> As an example, the Shell oil company is currently defending themselves in a criminal trial in Madrid, Spain. It is touted as the biggest bribing scandal in history.
> 
> Should they be convicted of bribery and corruption in their dealings in Nigeria, *should they be punished by the Canadian government, with no access to bidding on contracts,* obtaining permits, or expecting any aid from the government at all ?


----------



## MrMatt (Dec 21, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> this ^^ is a dubious piece of dishonest journalism. The author is twisting facts to make it appear that SNC Lavalin itself is the real perpetrator of libyan dictator mohammar ghaddafi's countless acts of murder, rape & torture decades ago.
> 
> .... edited out
> 
> ...


Yup, "ordinary run-of-the-mill bribes", and Trudeau is collapsing not for the crime, but for the coverup.

It's almost boring, a criminal case on illegal bribes, and an investigation into a coverup on political interference. I guess a bit too boring for a made for TV movie, but good enough for ordinary law abiding Canadians to get upset. Don't forget for every crazy Liberal partisan, there are many more who respect the rule of law and want a fair system for all.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I agree it is a Twilight Zone if we hold Canadian companies doing business abroad to different ethical standards than foreign companies.

Using Shell as an example because they are currently in the news, they have a Canadian subsidiary that no doubt interacts with the government at times.

Two of SNC Lavalin's subsidiary companies are involved in the allegations.

If the parent or a subsidiary company is found guilty in a criminal court, would they suffer the same government bans as a Canadian company ?

What an odd situation it would be if a foreign company convicted of crimes can bid on work that a Canadian company convicted of crimes was restricted from doing so.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

sags said:


> What an odd situation it would be if a foreign company convicted of crimes can bid on work that a Canadian company convicted of crimes was restricted from doing so.


Isn't that exactly what some SNC Lavalin pundits are saying? Their overseas subs can bid on Canadian business with impunity?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

andrew scheer does not comprehend what a DPA is. It's a plea-bargain type of agreement that will punish a company sufficiently to allow it to then progress forward, free of the constant overhang of corruption charges. It will deliver $$ millions in fines to a government's coffers. It will wind up in a matter of months, vs a ten-year procedure of judicial hearings & appeals that will cost government prosecutors $$ millions but produce no benefit.

but misguided scheer thinks a DPA is determined by prosecutors & judges after a full & lengthy public trial, including appeals to the supreme court.

wrong, andrew. A DPA is an out-of-court settlement. Most other democratic western countries have this legislation already in place.



> Conservative Leader Andrew Scheer said companies must meet multiple conditions to be eligible for a DPA.
> 
> " It is not up to politicians in Ottawa to determine whether or not a company has reached those criteria. It is up to our court officers, our prosecutors, ultimately judges to determine the fate of companies that are accused of these very serious crimes," he said.


https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/snc-lavalin-deferred-prosecution-1.5048561


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> andrew scheer does not comprehend what a DPA is. It's a plea-bargain type of agreement that will punish a company sufficiently to allow it to then progress forward, free of the constant overhang of corruption charges. It will deliver $$ millions in fines to a government's coffers. It will wind up in a matter of months, vs a ten-year procedure of judicial hearings & appeals that will cost government prosecutors $$ millions but produce no benefit.
> 
> but misguided scheer thinks a DPA is determined by prosecutors & judges after a full & lengthy public trial, including appeals to the supreme court.
> 
> ...


nice try pie .... completely . ..totally ... thoroughly ... utterly ... irrelevant

the ag declined to intervene, for whatever reasons she chose and the pmo's hit squad went after her and started a long campaign of mansplaining after she had made herself entirely clear, multiple times

the requirements for a dpa are completely irrelevant to the question of whether the prime minister and / or his staff obstructed justice


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

fatcat said:


> nice try pie .... completely . ..totally ... thoroughly ... utterly ... irrelevant



my post is 100% relevant. Andrew scheer does not understand that the new legislation provides that a DPA application be handled by the attorney general & the PPSC, entirely outside the public court system. Quite possibly you do not understand yourself.






> the ag declined to intervene, for whatever reasons she chose and the pmo's hit squad went after her and started a long campaign of mansplaining after she had made herself entirely clear, multiple times ... the requirements for a dpa are completely irrelevant to the question of whether the prime minister and / or his staff obstructed justice



this ^^ is the irrelevant drek each:


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

humble_pie said:


> my post is 100% relevant. Andrew scheer does not understand that the new legislation provides that a DPA application be handled by the attorney general & the PPSC, entirely outside the public court system. Quite possibly you do not understand yourself.
> 
> this ^^ is the irrelevant drek each:


i understand quite well what a dpa is .... the point is not appropriateness of the dpa, it is the independence of the attorney general and respect for the office, this is the crux of the issue, not the dpa 

the dpp and then the ag *both* declined to do a dpa, and repeated this many times to many people, virtually all of whom pretended they had poor hearing and kept trying to twist her (the ag's) arm to get her to change her mind (the full story of exactly why is yet to come but the deeply intertwined relationship of the Liberal party and snc-lavalin causes one to wonder what exactly has actually transpired between these two entities), she didn't want to change her mind and so she was demoted by the our feminist-in-chief

this is what has people who watch government shaking their heads in virtual unison, except the hardcore Liberal supporters who keep trying to change the subject

you and saggy are really the flat-earth society on this one


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

kcowan said:


> Isn't that exactly what some SNC Lavalin pundits are saying? Their overseas subs can bid on Canadian business with impunity?


Wouldn't that make sanctions from a criminal trial pretty much useless ? A company gets found guilty so they just do business through a subsidiary ?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Fatcat......you are missing a couple of key points.

The DPP cannot consider the "national interest" in a case that involves bribes to foreign officials, so they automatically recommend criminal prosecution and send it up to the AG.

The AG then had the responsibility to add the "national interest" into the overall considerations, which is what all the lobbying was about.

That is how it is and that is how it was. This was confirmed by Deputy Minister Drouin.

Rayboud doesn't dispute this, but says the lobbying was too intense and she felt pressured by it.

Related to that responsibility is the AG is independent but the Justice Minister is not. 

Jody Wilson Rayboud was wearing "two hats" and one of them involved consultations with the government and cabinet.

It appears that Rayboud took the independence of the AG very seriously, and her duties as Justice Minister to the cabinet and government.......not so much.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Interesting events continue to play out.

Jane Philpott scaled back her criticism of Justin Trudeau during a speech. She refused questions on SNC Lavalin but praised Trudeau for changing politics in Canada and creating a model for the world to emulate. She sure didn't convey a message of crisis in leadership or an out of control PM.

Jody Wilson Rayboud is now being used by Conservatives on a website to try to embarrass the government, and that is her choice to make but once again she is revealing some poor judgement by expecting to continue to embarrass the government and remain in Liberal caucus.

Other Liberal caucus members no longer have trust in her and don't want her around. 

I wouldn't be surprised if she gets the boot soon. It will be interesting to see if Philpott stays or leaves in support.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> Wouldn't that make a criminal trial pretty much useless waste of time ? A company gets found guilty so they just do business through a subsidiary ?



there are always many ways to skin a cat. That might be one of the ways. Another could be to shorten the suspension time for gummint contracts.

a detail i'm not clear about re possible 10-year-suspension from canadian gummint contracts for companies found guilty under the foreign anti-bribery legislation: would not that suspension commence only _after_ a guilty verdict had been rendered plus carried through all the appeals possible?

SNC has said that the company expects a 10-year litigation battle. So we would be looking at 10 years of contracts still being awarded to SNC in canada, ie any banning if found guilty after exhaustive appeal would only commence around 2030? meanwhile work on all contracts would proceed as usual?


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

and we are smart to look at the idea of separating the two functions of ag and justice minister

but the key points are well established and not in dispute and have nothing to do with the appropriateness of jwr's decisions but everything to do with how the pmo and the privy clerk, acting in an entirely unprofessional and partisan manner, and others exerted unwanted and unnecessary pressure on jwr

and this occurs against a backdrop of the weird and deeply intertwined relationship of the trudeau government and the trudeau foundation and snc-lavalin and quebec and the election

would they have done the same if the ag had decided not to do a dpa with suncor because suncor bribed peruvian officials in some (fantasy) oil drilling operation, i doubt it .... and so does virtually everyone who watches parliament hill from what i can read, except you and pie

everyone, except you and pie, sense there is something "off" ... something not right with the trudeau government and snc-lavalin

philpott and raybould are both rising stars in the Liberal pantheon and both risked their careers for something important, i don't think we know what that is fully yet, but they can't be just brushed off as "difficult" "not up to the job" women as you and pie are trying to do


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

sags said:


> The AG then had the responsibility to add the "national interest" into the overall considerations


This is utterly false.




sags said:


> Related to that responsibility is the AG is independent but the Justice Minister is not.
> 
> Jody Wilson Rayboud was wearing "two hats" and one of them involved consultations with the government and cabinet.
> 
> It appears that Rayboud took the independence of the AG very seriously, and her duties as Justice Minister to the cabinet and government.......not so much.


You have not the foggiest idea how the separation of the two roles is supposed to work.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

GoldStone said:


> You have not the foggiest idea how the separation of the two roles is supposed to work.


neither do you. Neither do the politicians on the Hill. Knowledgeable parties on the Hill are said to be studying the british lords who developed & use remediation agreements in the UK. Their deliberations were canada's model.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> there are always many ways to skin a cat. That might be one of the ways. Another could be to shorten the suspension time for gummint contracts.
> 
> a detail i'm not clear about re possible 10-year-suspension from canadian gummint contracts for companies found guilty under the foreign anti-bribery legislation: would not that suspension commence only _after_ a guilty verdict had been rendered plus carried through all the appeals possible?
> 
> SNC has said that the company expects a 10-year litigation battle. So we would be looking at 10 years of contracts still being awarded to SNC in canada, ie any banning if found guilty after exhaustive appeal would only commence around 2030? meanwhile work on all contracts would proceed as usual?


That is assuming SNC are found guilty. These types of cases are very difficult to prosecute at the best of times and many players from Libya may not be around anymore.

If the government loses the case, SNC Lavalin can ask the judge for the government to pay some or all of their legal fees.

In the Economical demutualization which lasted only a couple of years, the legal costs were in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The legal costs for this trial will be massive.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

one detail about jody wilson-raybould that continues to trouble was how her claim that she felt she had been "inappropriately" pressured got conveyed to the globe & mail in the first place.

as journalism goes, the globe is highly-principled & arch-conservative. It is canada's news media of record. The globe will never, ever print any kind of rumour without having first seen the hard evidence.

the globe is now, & always has been, mildly but avowedly pro-Conservative Party in its politics. In an election year, this news media will, understandably, look for issues it can headline in order to further the CP platform.

only a small cellule of globe reporters - ibbitson, fife, yakabuski, a few others - promoted the SNC/DPA story. Other globe journos have remained silent.

but a news media as responsible as the globe & mail would never have published those early stories unless that cellule of scribes plus their editors had seen hard evidence with their own eyes. Merely hearing rumours would not have been enough for a newspaper as august & as gloried as canada's globe & mail to take the action it did.

bref, globe had to have seen a good portion of wilson-raybould's testimony in advance.

but how could such a thing have happened? it's almost unthinkable that canada's justice minister did something as shocking as approaching the globe herself, in order to slip them enough of her future testimony as would be necessary to convince the globe it had a legitimate story. Wilson-raybould would have been leaking secret cabinet deliberations, something never before seen on such a scale in canada.

or did someone on wilson-raybould's staff have access to her famously-copious on-the-spot "notes" & surreptitiously conveyed these to eager globe journos?

if the latter, was the conveying done with or without wilson-raybould's knowledge & cooperation?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Geez Humble.....that is a very substantive question and one that I have never heard asked in any of the hearings, interviews, press conferences or other media.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> neither do you. Neither do the politicians on the Hill. Knowledgeable parties on the Hill are said to be studying the british lords who developed & use remediation agreements in the UK. Their deliberations were canada's model.


It seems that you lost track of the thread.

My reply to sags was about separation of AG role and Minister of Justice role. In our system, the same person wears both hats. This has been the case since 1867. The two roles are supposed to be completely independent.

Minister of Justices advances new legislation. This is political role. Political pressure from the PM, PMO and other ministers is fair game.

AG prosecutes the laws. This is an independent, non-partisan, apolitical role. The Shawcross Doctrine, established in 1951, guides the interactions between AG and the rest of the Cabinet, including the PM.

MOJ / AG is expected to wear one hat a time. They are expected to build a firewall in their brain that separates political considerations of MOJ from non-partisan, apolitical considerations of AG.

sags post to which I reply demonstrated extreme confusion about this concept.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> Geez Humble.....that is a very substantive question and one that I have never heard asked in any of the hearings, interviews, press conferences or other media.



i saw the question raised at the very beginning. A few scribes were wondering why the globe was being so aggressive, because the globe is canada's venerated newspaper of record & it will never, ever, walk itself out on a rumour tightrope. Therefore the globe had to have seen something from the source. In writing.

there were also a few scribes who suggested, when wilson-raybould resigned, that she would immediately cross the floor to the CPs. 

i recall at least one journo expressing astonishment & saying that standard conduct for a cabinet minister resigning on a principle, in both canada & great britain, is for such minister to promptly hold a press conference to explain to the nation his reasons for deviating from cabinet policy.

that particular journo added an expert authority who said that there are no restrictions on a cabinet minister who resigns on principle. Such minister may speak his truth, in fact should speak his truth, without delay.

* * * * *

another detail that jars are the very friendly text messages that wilson-raybould herself sent to gerald butts during the four months she would later testify constituted a "barrage" of unwelcome high-pressure visits & e-mails from the PMO & at least one other cabinet minister.

butts, you will recall, read out a couple of e-mails sent by wilson-raybould herself "Hey GB" in which she was the party who requested "a convo" on SNC, rather than the other way around.

was butts lying? did he make those invitational e-mails up? or did wilson-raybould herself actually initiate some of the contacts & meetings she would later revile as "a barrage" of "inappropriate" interferences?


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

humble_pie said:


> was butts lying? did he make those invitational e-mails up? or did wilson-raybould herself actually initiate some of the contacts & meetings she would later revile as "a barrage" of "inappropriate" interferences?


Here's an idea.

Trudeau should lift JWR's gag order. Let her speak freely.

Liberal majority on the Justice Committee should invite her back for a second appearance.

Wernick was given a chance to rebut JWR's testimony. The same courtesy should be extended to her. Let's hear what she has to say about Butts' testimony.

Liberals have nothing to hide, amirite?


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good questions Humble, but unfortunately Wilson Rayboud and Philpott refuse to answer questions from reporters.

It would be a serious breach of trust to leak confidential information to the press. Perhaps the RCMP should look into it.


----------



## GoldStone (Mar 6, 2011)

sags said:


> It would be a serious breach of trust to leak confidential information to the press. Perhaps the RCMP should look into it.


Yes they should, once they are done looking into obstruction of justice by Trudeau and his cronies.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Bring in the RCMP and let the chips fall where they may.

I am thinking there is only one person who benefited from leaking the information to the media and it wasn't Trudeau.


----------



## fatcat (Nov 11, 2009)

sure comrade, we can agree on that, allow full and open testimony under oath (if they are already under oath as some have said, let’s reaffirm it when they begin their testimony) and have trudeau lift jwr’s gag order and have jane philpott speak and look at the relationship of snc to the Liberals ... shine a lot on the whole damn thing

but so far the Liberals do not want this

ps. who the hell is “benefiting” from a leak to the media ?


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

sags said:


> It would be a serious breach of trust to leak confidential information to the press. Perhaps the RCMP should look into it.



yes it would be extraordinarily serious, since the betrayal would have occurred before the minister resigned.

still, i wouldn't call for the RCMP or any other investigation. How many calls for investigations-RCMP-punishments-public-hangings have there been already? too many each:

me i belong to a quieter, more patient j-school of evidence gathering & story building. What goes around comes around has proven true all my life. All one has to do is open a memory file in the brain & sooner or later - sometimes years later - the missing pieces of the jigsaw will start to log themselves in.

this is an important enough story that, sooner or later, somebody is going to surface who will be able to explain just how it was that ibbitson fife yakabuski & others in that globe cellule became convinced that the attorney general had come to feel so - sorry for using the word again - so "inappropriately" pressured.

then - even though they were the storied, the gilt-edged, the above-it-all impartial reporters & op-ed opinionators from canada's flagship news media - the globe cellule was sufficiently gung-ho on the Conservative party in an election year that they decided to turn the JWR-SNC-DPA-PPSC harassment story into their chief offensive weapon with which to batter the Liberals.

to do the globe justice, they have managed, in the interests of impartial professional journalism, to publish a minor medley of countervailing stories. Enough that an insightful reader is able to spot some doubting details, although a general reader might miss those.

.


----------



## nortel'd (Mar 20, 2012)

*Rex Murphy at Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Show June 5, 2019*

Rex Murphy is right on point about the energy industry. If you have 55 minutes to spare you need to watch this video. 

I live in Ontario and I am thankful for the oil and gas industry! 
Why? 
As stated below; its jobs provide dignity, and our society is entirely dependent on it. We should not be trying to block it at every path.”


Rex Murphy at Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Show 2019

“_Rex Murphy was the headline speaker at the Saskatchewan Oil and Gas Show in Weyburn, Sask., on June 6, 2019. His message? The energy industry saved Newfoundland in its darkest hour. Its jobs provide dignity, and our society is entirely dependent on it. We should be thankful for the energy industry, not trying to block it at every path_.”


----------

