Trudeau

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: XXX_er

so then do we believe Gerry's version, whom exactly does one believe ?

Obviously we should all believe JWR but is that mostly cuz we all hate JT ?

but OTOH she is a lawyer so let anyone amongst you who has not made a lawyer joke say yes we must believe her

Ergo we are just believing JWR because we hate JT > we hate lawyers

Philpot resigned becuz she is JWR BFF 

this is so like highschool

I believe Gerry for the most part, but the answer lies in the middle.  Even if you read JWR's testimony they didn't do anything illegal, they just kept pressuring her to get an independent review and she felt the badgering was inappropriate.  Considering the job losses that are sure to come charging SNC, it seems naive that she would be able to both hold her principled line AND get no pushback from the PMO.  Forgive me for not hating JT enough, but my outrage over this scandal is not that high.

Why would you believe either?  Do you really believe you have enough facts to warrant a judgment on this issue?

If you were Dictator of Canada, at what number of people employed would you allow their executives another set of laws?  Would that number go lower if they were prominent party donors?

I hope you cheerleaders are making bank associating yourselves with these political parties you hold so dear to your hearts.

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: XXX_er

so then do we believe Gerry's version, whom exactly does one believe ?

Obviously we should all believe JWR but is that mostly cuz we all hate JT ?

but OTOH she is a lawyer so let anyone amongst you who has not made a lawyer joke say yes we must believe her

Ergo we are just believing JWR because we hate JT > we hate lawyers

Philpot resigned becuz she is JWR BFF 

this is so like highschool

I believe Gerry for the most part, but the answer lies in the middle.  Even if you read JWR's testimony they didn't do anything illegal, they just kept pressuring her to get an independent review and she felt the badgering was inappropriate.  Considering the job losses that are sure to come charging SNC, it seems naive that she would be able to both hold her principled line AND get no pushback from the PMO.  Forgive me for not hating JT enough, but my outrage over this scandal is not that high.

Why would you believe either?  Do you really believe you have enough facts to warrant a judgment on this issue?

If you were Dictator of Canada, at what number of people employed would you allow their executives another set of laws?  Would that number go lower if they were prominent party donors?

I hope you cheerleaders are making bank associating yourselves with these political parties you hold so dear to your hearts.

I don't fully believe either as I said, but like I have said to you before, this is politics and you almost always have to pass judgment without all the facts or you could never vote for anyone or form on opinion.  All I can do is hear what they have to say and what others with experience in these matters have to say and try and tease out the truth.  If more information arises I will re-assess.  

Part of the reason I believe this is a big deal at the moment is that the vast majority of us have no idea what the protocol should be between the PMO and the AG so we are all being canvassed by the opposing sides in a battle to sell a story, and from what I can see JWR et al are winning the story selling game at the moment.  

Obviously, a large company with many employees is going to get the attention of government officials more when they might collapse or leave the country.  If I was dictator of Canada I would act to save jobs and probably in a similar manner.  There was a possible course of action that could be taken that is perfectly legal, JWR just didn't agree with it.  What are these other sets of laws you speak of?

I am a cheerleader for Canada, and if the Liberals truly fuck up I will vote for someone else as I have done in the past.  This just doesn't qualify for me... or for you, I presume since only a randomized controlled trial and a peer-reviewed research paper will suffice for any and all judgment.

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: XXX_er

so then do we believe Gerry's version, whom exactly does one believe ?

Obviously we should all believe JWR but is that mostly cuz we all hate JT ?

but OTOH she is a lawyer so let anyone amongst you who has not made a lawyer joke say yes we must believe her

Ergo we are just believing JWR because we hate JT > we hate lawyers

Philpot resigned becuz she is JWR BFF

this is so like highschool

I believe Gerry for the most part, but the answer lies in the middle. Even if you read JWR's testimony they didn't do anything illegal, they just kept pressuring her to get an independent review and she felt the badgering was inappropriate. Considering the job losses that are sure to come charging SNC, it seems naive that she would be able to both hold her principled line AND get no pushback from the PMO. Forgive me for not hating JT enough, but my outrage over this scandal is not that high.

Why would you believe either? Do you really believe you have enough facts to warrant a judgment on this issue?

If you were Dictator of Canada, at what number of people employed would you allow their executives another set of laws? Would that number go lower if they were prominent party donors?

I hope you cheerleaders are making bank associating yourselves with these political parties you hold so dear to your hearts.

no i don't believe any of us have enough facts i think the story is being driven by the media frenzy in an case none of it affects me and there is/was no point in voting liberal up here but many people possibly with short memories did vote for anyone but harper just a short time ago i am more interested in what actualy happened

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: XXX_er

so then do we believe Gerry's version, whom exactly does one believe ?

Obviously we should all believe JWR but is that mostly cuz we all hate JT ?

but OTOH she is a lawyer so let anyone amongst you who has not made a lawyer joke say yes we must believe her

Ergo we are just believing JWR because we hate JT > we hate lawyers

Philpot resigned becuz she is JWR BFF 

this is so like highschool

I believe Gerry for the most part, but the answer lies in the middle.  Even if you read JWR's testimony they didn't do anything illegal, they just kept pressuring her to get an independent review and she felt the badgering was inappropriate.  Considering the job losses that are sure to come charging SNC, it seems naive that she would be able to both hold her principled line AND get no pushback from the PMO.  Forgive me for not hating JT enough, but my outrage over this scandal is not that high.

Why would you believe either?  Do you really believe you have enough facts to warrant a judgment on this issue?

If you were Dictator of Canada, at what number of people employed would you allow their executives another set of laws?  Would that number go lower if they were prominent party donors?

I hope you cheerleaders are making bank associating yourselves with these political parties you hold so dear to your hearts.

I don't fully believe either as I said, but like I have said to you before, this is politics and you almost always have to pass judgment without all the facts or you could never vote for anyone or form on opinion.  All I can do is hear what they have to say and what others with experience in these matters have to say and try and tease out the truth.  If more information arises I will re-assess.  

Part of the reason I believe this is a big deal at the moment is that the vast majority of us have no idea what the protocol should be between the PMO and the AG so we are all being canvassed by the opposing sides in a battle to sell a story, and from what I can see JWR et al are winning the story selling game at the moment.  

Obviously, a large company with many employees is going to get the attention of government officials more when they might collapse or leave the country.  If I was dictator of Canada I would act to save jobs and probably in a similar manner.  There was a possible course of action that could be taken that is perfectly legal, JWR just didn't agree with it.  What are these other sets of laws you speak of?

I am a cheerleader for Canada, and if the Liberals truly fuck up I will vote for someone else as I have done in the past.  This just doesn't qualify for me... or for you, I presume since only a randomized controlled trial and a peer-reviewed research paper will suffice for any and all judgment.

Jobs!  Jobs!  Jobs!  Christ, won't anyone think of the childr... jobs!

How's about we quit beating around the bush and actually fix the problem:

A) Change the laws so certain companies are free from the rule of law

or

B) Change the laws so that everyone within 20 feet of the C-Suite goes to jail or forfeits 90% of their net worth

Yet all people can do is pick a side based on no information.  Good job.

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: XXX_er

so then do we believe Gerry's version, whom exactly does one believe ?

Obviously we should all believe JWR but is that mostly cuz we all hate JT ?

but OTOH she is a lawyer so let anyone amongst you who has not made a lawyer joke say yes we must believe her

Ergo we are just believing JWR because we hate JT > we hate lawyers

Philpot resigned becuz she is JWR BFF 

this is so like highschool

I believe Gerry for the most part, but the answer lies in the middle.  Even if you read JWR's testimony they didn't do anything illegal, they just kept pressuring her to get an independent review and she felt the badgering was inappropriate.  Considering the job losses that are sure to come charging SNC, it seems naive that she would be able to both hold her principled line AND get no pushback from the PMO.  Forgive me for not hating JT enough, but my outrage over this scandal is not that high.

Why would you believe either?  Do you really believe you have enough facts to warrant a judgment on this issue?

If you were Dictator of Canada, at what number of people employed would you allow their executives another set of laws?  Would that number go lower if they were prominent party donors?

I hope you cheerleaders are making bank associating yourselves with these political parties you hold so dear to your hearts.

I don't fully believe either as I said, but like I have said to you before, this is politics and you almost always have to pass judgment without all the facts or you could never vote for anyone or form on opinion.  All I can do is hear what they have to say and what others with experience in these matters have to say and try and tease out the truth.  If more information arises I will re-assess.  

Part of the reason I believe this is a big deal at the moment is that the vast majority of us have no idea what the protocol should be between the PMO and the AG so we are all being canvassed by the opposing sides in a battle to sell a story, and from what I can see JWR et al are winning the story selling game at the moment.  

Obviously, a large company with many employees is going to get the attention of government officials more when they might collapse or leave the country.  If I was dictator of Canada I would act to save jobs and probably in a similar manner.  There was a possible course of action that could be taken that is perfectly legal, JWR just didn't agree with it.  What are these other sets of laws you speak of?

I am a cheerleader for Canada, and if the Liberals truly fuck up I will vote for someone else as I have done in the past.  This just doesn't qualify for me... or for you, I presume since only a randomized controlled trial and a peer-reviewed research paper will suffice for any and all judgment.

Jobs!  Jobs!  Jobs!  Christ, won't anyone think of the childr... jobs!

How's about we quit beating around the bush and actually fix the problem:

A) Change the laws so certain companies are free from the rule of law

or

B) Change the laws so that everyone within 20 feet of the C-Suite goes to jail or forfeits 90% of their net worth

Yet all people can do is pick a side based on no information.  Good job.

Are you saying that a remediation agreement is against the law?  Do you disagree with them in general, or just in this case?  Why?

Maybe I just have more information than you.  Either way, from my POV you have also clearly picked a side.

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: XXX_er

so then do we believe Gerry's version, whom exactly does one believe ?

Obviously we should all believe JWR but is that mostly cuz we all hate JT ?

but OTOH she is a lawyer so let anyone amongst you who has not made a lawyer joke say yes we must believe her

Ergo we are just believing JWR because we hate JT > we hate lawyers

Philpot resigned becuz she is JWR BFF 

this is so like highschool

I believe Gerry for the most part, but the answer lies in the middle.  Even if you read JWR's testimony they didn't do anything illegal, they just kept pressuring her to get an independent review and she felt the badgering was inappropriate.  Considering the job losses that are sure to come charging SNC, it seems naive that she would be able to both hold her principled line AND get no pushback from the PMO.  Forgive me for not hating JT enough, but my outrage over this scandal is not that high.

Why would you believe either?  Do you really believe you have enough facts to warrant a judgment on this issue?

If you were Dictator of Canada, at what number of people employed would you allow their executives another set of laws?  Would that number go lower if they were prominent party donors?

I hope you cheerleaders are making bank associating yourselves with these political parties you hold so dear to your hearts.

I don't fully believe either as I said, but like I have said to you before, this is politics and you almost always have to pass judgment without all the facts or you could never vote for anyone or form on opinion.  All I can do is hear what they have to say and what others with experience in these matters have to say and try and tease out the truth.  If more information arises I will re-assess.  

Part of the reason I believe this is a big deal at the moment is that the vast majority of us have no idea what the protocol should be between the PMO and the AG so we are all being canvassed by the opposing sides in a battle to sell a story, and from what I can see JWR et al are winning the story selling game at the moment.  

Obviously, a large company with many employees is going to get the attention of government officials more when they might collapse or leave the country.  If I was dictator of Canada I would act to save jobs and probably in a similar manner.  There was a possible course of action that could be taken that is perfectly legal, JWR just didn't agree with it.  What are these other sets of laws you speak of?

I am a cheerleader for Canada, and if the Liberals truly fuck up I will vote for someone else as I have done in the past.  This just doesn't qualify for me... or for you, I presume since only a randomized controlled trial and a peer-reviewed research paper will suffice for any and all judgment.

Jobs!  Jobs!  Jobs!  Christ, won't anyone think of the childr... jobs!

How's about we quit beating around the bush and actually fix the problem:

A) Change the laws so certain companies are free from the rule of law

or

B) Change the laws so that everyone within 20 feet of the C-Suite goes to jail or forfeits 90% of their net worth

Yet all people can do is pick a side based on no information.  Good job.

Are you saying that a remediation agreement is against the law?  Do you disagree with them in general, or just in this case?  Why?

Maybe I just have more information than you.  Either way, from my POV you have also clearly picked a side.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.  As well, up is down and cats should marry dogs.

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: ReductiMat

Posted by: chupacabra

Posted by: XXX_er

so then do we believe Gerry's version, whom exactly does one believe ?

Obviously we should all believe JWR but is that mostly cuz we all hate JT ?

but OTOH she is a lawyer so let anyone amongst you who has not made a lawyer joke say yes we must believe her

Ergo we are just believing JWR because we hate JT > we hate lawyers

Philpot resigned becuz she is JWR BFF 

this is so like highschool

I believe Gerry for the most part, but the answer lies in the middle.  Even if you read JWR's testimony they didn't do anything illegal, they just kept pressuring her to get an independent review and she felt the badgering was inappropriate.  Considering the job losses that are sure to come charging SNC, it seems naive that she would be able to both hold her principled line AND get no pushback from the PMO.  Forgive me for not hating JT enough, but my outrage over this scandal is not that high.

Why would you believe either?  Do you really believe you have enough facts to warrant a judgment on this issue?

If you were Dictator of Canada, at what number of people employed would you allow their executives another set of laws?  Would that number go lower if they were prominent party donors?

I hope you cheerleaders are making bank associating yourselves with these political parties you hold so dear to your hearts.

I don't fully believe either as I said, but like I have said to you before, this is politics and you almost always have to pass judgment without all the facts or you could never vote for anyone or form on opinion.  All I can do is hear what they have to say and what others with experience in these matters have to say and try and tease out the truth.  If more information arises I will re-assess.  

Part of the reason I believe this is a big deal at the moment is that the vast majority of us have no idea what the protocol should be between the PMO and the AG so we are all being canvassed by the opposing sides in a battle to sell a story, and from what I can see JWR et al are winning the story selling game at the moment.  

Obviously, a large company with many employees is going to get the attention of government officials more when they might collapse or leave the country.  If I was dictator of Canada I would act to save jobs and probably in a similar manner.  There was a possible course of action that could be taken that is perfectly legal, JWR just didn't agree with it.  What are these other sets of laws you speak of?

I am a cheerleader for Canada, and if the Liberals truly fuck up I will vote for someone else as I have done in the past.  This just doesn't qualify for me... or for you, I presume since only a randomized controlled trial and a peer-reviewed research paper will suffice for any and all judgment.

Jobs!  Jobs!  Jobs!  Christ, won't anyone think of the childr... jobs!

How's about we quit beating around the bush and actually fix the problem:

A) Change the laws so certain companies are free from the rule of law

or

B) Change the laws so that everyone within 20 feet of the C-Suite goes to jail or forfeits 90% of their net worth

Yet all people can do is pick a side based on no information.  Good job.

Are you saying that a remediation agreement is against the law?  Do you disagree with them in general, or just in this case?  Why?

Maybe I just have more information than you.  Either way, from my POV you have also clearly picked a side.

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.  As well, up is down and cats should marry dogs.

You can joke all you want, but the remediation agreement is at the heart of this "scandal" and either it is a reasonable law or it is not.  To me, it seems that it could apply to this crime, which is why I don't see the PMO's action as all that problematic.  Of course, I am not a lawyer.

Posted by: chupacabra

You can joke all you want, but the remediation agreement is at the heart of this "scandal" and either it is a reasonable law or it is not.  To me, it seems that it could apply to this crime, which is why I don't see the PMO's action as all that problematic.  Of course, I am not a lawyer.

You also have to factor in the way this law was drafted and passed. It was attached near the end of the omnibus budget bill with a rather deficient explanation so it was pretty much guaranteed to pas with little debate. There is significant and probable speculation that the law was brought in specifically to rescue SNC-Lavalin which makes the whole thing reek of graft.

This is a debate/issue with no real clear or easy answer, especially when one widely broadens their view to a global scale. If Canada was the major international player and held a majority of international economic and political influence then the choice to say we're not going to stand for this type of corruption would stand a much better chance of having global influence and potentially changing the way the world operates. As it stands, doing the right thing may be the right thing to do, but I think one would be a bit misguided to believe that decision would have any sort of global impact or ramification. It matters because if the larger players continue to skirt the rules then doing the right thing will help us feel better about the ethical question, but will do little to improve the state of business anywhere else but here.

So what do you want? Jobs and economic benefits with the understanding that the wheels are getting greased a bit but in a way that has more positive than negative impacts for the majority of Canadians or a push towards an ethically pure economic and political society that will probably have more negative than positive economic impacts for the majority of Canadians.

Posted by: syncro

Posted by: chupacabra

You can joke all you want, but the remediation agreement is at the heart of this "scandal" and either it is a reasonable law or it is not.  To me, it seems that it could apply to this crime, which is why I don't see the PMO's action as all that problematic.  Of course, I am not a lawyer.

You also have to factor in the way this law was drafted and passed. It was attached near the end of the omnibus budget bill with a rather deficient explanation so it was pretty much guaranteed to pas with little debate. There is significant and probable speculation that the law was brought in specifically to rescue SNC-Lavalin which makes the whole thing reek of graft.

This is a debate/issue with no real clear or easy answer, especially when one widely broadens their view to a global scale. If Canada was the major international player and held a majority of international economic and political influence then the choice to say we're not going to stand for this type of corruption would stand a much better chance of having global influence and potentially changing the way the world operates. As it stands, doing the right thing may be the right thing to do, but I think one would be a bit misguided to believe that decision would have any sort of global impact or ramification. It matters because if the larger players continue to skirt the rules then doing the right thing will help us feel better about the ethical question, but will do little to improve the state of business anywhere else but here.

So what do you want? Jobs and economic benefits with the understanding that the wheels are getting greased a bit but in a way that has more positive than negative impacts for the majority of Canadians or a push towards an ethically pure economic and political society that will probably have more negative than positive economic impacts for the majority of Canadians.

I did a bit more homework and I would say it is virtually certain the law was put in place to protect SNC, or I guess if you were to give the Liberals the benefit of the doubt, to protect jobs.  If I have to choose I would go with option A because I don't think it is Canada's job to rid other countries of their corruption, but any remediation would have to hit the company hard and should also go after the decision makers that allowed the bribes (but I doubt that ever happens).  I spoke with the president of a US construction supply company about this in the past and he said without bribes there are a lot of countries that you just simply cannot do business in, so I am sure SNC is not the only Canadian company involved in bribery regardless of our laws.  You are right.  There is no clear or easy answer.

Posted by: chupacabra

You are right.

I know, I'm always right. I'm not sure if it's a curse or a blessing.

How many jobs need to be lost and how much money does one have to pay for a separate code of law to apply to them?

How many jobs would be lost at SNC if they were criminally prosecuted?  OOM answer is all that’s need, 1, 10, 100, 1000, etc.

Pretty simple question the supporters of criminality here refuse to answer.

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2019/03/snc-lavalin-responds-to-corruption-charges-were-still-the-most-law-abiding-company-in-montreal/

The "jobs" angle is a red herring, IMO.

SNC is an engineering and construction firm. They respond to RFPs for projects that are already planned and funded. If SNC ceases to exist, the projects still exist, and someone needs to do the design and construction. There are plenty of other firms in Canada that can do design and construction - they will fill the gap, and they'll even hire SNC refugees that have lost their job.

It's not like a city plans a bridge, then SNC goes tits up and they say "well fuck it, guess we won't build that bridge now".

Don't blame JWR for any of this. Blame SNC Lavalin for putting her in the position where she had to say something. Another company getting sweetheart deals & subsidies from the liberals, just like Bombardier.