Does anyone believe that most, if not
all, large national and international companies seeking to do business
with overseas entities such as Saudi Arabia do not provide
'incentives' to the principals involved?
Does anyone believe that without such
'incentives' said companies would not receive the contracts but would
be passed over in favor of those that do 'grease the wheels'?
Does anyone believe that all
governments, past, present and of any political stripe do not
'encourage' and / or turn a blind eye to such practices when large
contracts that benefit Canadian companies and jobs are at stake?
Does anyone believe the the opposition
Conservatives who signed a deal with said corrupt overseas government
for a London, Ontario company to supply military equipment to them
will not pretend moral outrage at such actions.
Does anyone believe that JWR was not
under immense pressure to find a way to avoid having such a large
employer of Canadians be effectively removed from carrying on
government related business in Canada?
Does anyone believe that JWR was not
removed from her post as AG in direct response to her unmoving
decision regarding the SNC-Lavalin
prosecution?
Does anyone believe that much of the
'outrage' by both the Conservatives and the NDP is not politically
motivated and will be kept 'in play' right up to election time?
Does
anyone believe that the AG's role should not be separated from
government control and influence and any political influence and not
be a member of cabinet?
The
whole fiasco is not over yet by a long shot and I predict that the
court proceedings will drag on till AFTER the election at which time,
irregardless of what party is then in power, a way will be found to
'rescue' SNC-Lavalin
and save Quebec jobs.
'A
deal to allow SNC-Lavalin to avoid criminal liability could still be
on the table amid a furor over whether the Trudeau government tried
to meddle in the prosecution of SNC-Lavalin, the Star has learned.
“My
understanding is when criminal proceedings are ongoing that that
option is always available,” Public Services and Procurement
Minister Carla Qualtrough said in an interview.
The
requirement to continually assess the strength of the prosecution
case, evidence, witnesses, and changing circumstances are “an
ongoing obligation” within the DPA (deferred prosecution agreement)
regime, as in any prosecution, she said.'
Enough
said!
6 comments:
Good lord, man. the plural of company is companies, not companys. Three times in a page is a bit much.
The trouble is that Justice minister and AG are one and the same person in our system. Justice minister is the political position - other cabinet ministers are free to try and influence that persona. They are not free to influence that person in their AG role.
Nor can the AG order the Public Prosecution Service
to stop prosecution of a case except for a legal reason that has to be publicly gazetted. An AG is duty bound to accept the recommendations of the PPS, which is independent unless there is some obvious reason not to. That's what an independent PPS is for in the first place.
Why is it so difficult to understand these basics? I read the same old stuff over and over again on ProgBlog trying to justify the indefensible. I note that JWR has opined that nothing criminal occurred because she in effect chose to have her Justice minister hat on, but did mention that she hoped Trudeau wasn't trying to influence her in her role as AG back in September. And the man backed away from that at once, both he and she said if my recollection is correct.
Overall, what I get from your epistle is that hey, we're all big boys here and spot of corruption is bound to occur, so why not let it? I cannot agree.
What we need is to separate the role of AG from that of Justice minister. It's obvious. Two persons, one a public servant as AG, and whatever dope politician they want as Justice minister. It seems to me that the hell JWR has gone through is precisely because she occupied two roles, which in this case became mutually incompatible. JWR chose to uphold the AG side of her mandate and was pressured on the justice minister side. Because her brain didn't cave in to the political side, JT demoted her and no doubt brought in Lametti, a new complaisant Justice minister/AG who couldn't care less about ethics jusging by his utterances. All he has to do now is ward off an angry PPS and wave his magic wand for SNC-L to get a DPA for their corrupt behaviour, which even the neoliberal World Bank found wanting. That'll be a reaL fight with the PPS after this schemozzle.
I read reams of words that don't get to the point about the dual nature of Justice minister and AG in one perason, or are confused, or want to excuse big companies acting criminally, because sob, there might be job losses among the everyday saints working within it. What kind of message does a DPA send to them? It's OK to be unethical? I'm a retired engineer myself and due to the oath I took, I want prosecution to clear these peoples' minds up about right and wrong.
Liberals and Conservatives, the dark underbelly of Canada. Cruisin' along, makin' deals, the last thing on their minds the average pleb despite high and mighty words. They do it for personal fortune and to polish their corporate CVs. Both political parties need chucking to the curbside for past "deeds". Disgusting. No honour shown here by anyone that I can perceive.
BM
BM, I don't pretend to be good at correct spelling, thanks for the correction now fixed!
As for the rest you will note that the content is posed as questions for I am not at all sure who or what to believe anymore......
In terms of the point BM makes about the need to separate the AG from the Justice Minister, that is precisely the way Britain operates. There, the Justice Minister sits in Parliament as a member of Cabinet. The Attorney General, a separate person, does not sit in Cabinet. Clearly, that is something that needs to be considered in Canada.
I light of recent events there seems to be increasing support for such a move Lorne.
Therer is plenty of human failing behind the situation, Rual. But the failing is also structural.
Its going to be an 'interesting' but rather scary few months Owen!
Post a Comment