The Star opinion - Why Jody Wilson is no hero
- Thread starter nottyboi
- Start date
Junk article by Toronto Star.
JWR did her due diligence no DPA for SNC .
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-ceo-guilty-fraud-************-duhaime-1.5001839
Here why
Why SNC-Lavalin deserves to be prosecution:
Former SNC-Lavalin CEO pleads guilty in superhospital fraud case
PIerrre Duhaime's trial on charges of fraud, conspiracy and forgery was set to start Monday
CBC News · Posted: Feb 01, 2019 9:58 AM ET | Last Updated: February 1
Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Pierrre Duhaime leaves a Montreal courtroom on Friday, after pleaded guilty to a charge of helping a public servant commit breach of trust for his role in the MUHC superhospital bribe scandal. (Paul Chiasson/Canadian Press)
Former SNC-Lavalin CEO Pierrre Duhaime pleaded guilty in a Montreal courtroom Friday morning to helping a public servant commit breach of trust, six years after he was first arrested and accused of bribing public officials.
In 2009, Duhaime was informed that an employee from his engineering company was in contact with Yanaï Elbaz, an official from the McGill University Hospital Centre — right around the time SNC-Lavalin was trying to secure the contract to build the MUHC superhospital in Montreal.
That contract was worth $1.3 billion. Duhaime, now 64, never looked into that information, thereby committing a crime.
PS. We all know about the SNC scandals with Libya ... Here the are scandals in Montreal super hospital with SNC Lavalin also but hardly it get mention in the news!
No fucking DPA for SNC Lavalin!! Just look at the reason scandals in Montreal with super hospital with SNC Lavalin involved with fraud . This is a no brainer .. Trudeau is a fucking idiot and Toronto star is just trying to spin it for Trudeau and attack JWR!!
Former CEO of SNC-Lavalin is listed as a donor to the Liberal Party and the Trudeau Foundation
Former CEO of SNC-Lavalin is listed as a donor to the Liberal Party and the Trudeau Foundation
Roberto Wakerell-Cruz by Roberto Wakerell-Cruz 4 weeks ago
Among all of the drama surrounding the Prime Minister at the moment, some are now pointing out that Guy Saint-Pierrre, former President, CEO, and chairman of the board of SNC-Lavalin, is listed as a donor on the Liberal Party’s 2015-2016 annual financial report.
There is nothing illegal about Saint-Pierrre donating to the Trudeau Foundation, but it does catch the attention of many that are already scrutinizing the PM for trying to politically interfere in the justice system.
Since he became Liberal leader in April 2013, gifts to the Foundation have increased significantly. Donations went from $172,211 in 2015 to $731,753 in 2016, while foreign donations from 0 in 2007 to $535,000 in 2016.
Some of Canada’s largest corporations including Air Canada, BMO, Suncor and Resolute Forest Products — have sponsored Trudeau Foundation conferences. While others like Bombardier even have members of their board of directors on the board of the Trudeau Foundation.
Remember when SNC-Lavalin funnelled $100k to the Liberals?
A bombshell Globe and Mail report accuses key players in the Prime Minister’s Office of attempting to interfere in the prosecution of Montréal-based engineering firm SNC-Lavalin.
The report alleges the PMO tried to pressure former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould to force the public prosecutor to settle, which is what SNC-Lavalin wants. When she refused, she was demoted to a less significant cabinet role.
The Prime Minister’s Office denies the allegations, and Wilson-Raybould is refusing to comment.
The ongoing case involves millions of dollars in alleged bribes to Libyan officials—including $160 million to Saadi Gaddafi. This is just one of several instances where SNC-Lavalin or its executives have faced prosecution for corruption, typically revolving around bribes.
The firm’s former CEO just last week pleaded guilty on a multimillion dollar bribery scheme involving a $1.3 billion contract for a Montréal superhospital.
Another key executive illegally funnelled a six-figure sum to the federal Liberals.
Last May, former SNC-Lavalin vice-president Normand Morin was charged with engineering a scheme to illegally donate more than $100,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada, as well as Liberal riding associations and leadership candidates.
These donations took place over a period of seven years, during which $8,000 was given to Conservatives through the same scheme.
Employees would donate in their names, but the company would cover the donation through reimbursements for “false refunds for personal expenses or payment of fictitious bonuses.” Corporate contributions have been illegal in Canada since 2006.
Despite the scale and significance of the scam, Morin was required to pay only $2,000 as punishment after pleading guilty in November. The media didn’t report on his plea until last month.
SNC-Lavalin admitted there were other executives involved, though they were never publicly identified and Morin was the only one charged.
Though this didn’t stop SNC-Lavalin from having high-level access to Justin Trudeau’s office.
Since 2017, the company’s representatives have met with senior officials in the Prime Minister’s Office—including Trudeau’s principal secretary, Gerald Butts—on 14 occasions, purportedly to lobby for “justice,” which seems to be an odd topic for an engineering firm.
For optics alone, the PMO shouldn’t have been taking meetings with representatives of a company facing ongoing criminal prosecution.
I’m inclined to side with NDP member of parliament Charlie Angus in saying SNC-Lavalin shouldn’t even have access to federal contracts, given its track record of corruption.
If the Globe report is true, thank goodness Wilson-Raybould had the moral grounding to say no, despite it coming at a personal cost.
It’s clear the ties between the Liberals and SNC-Lavalin run deep.
PS NO DPA for SNC Lavelin!!
Wilson-Raybould testified that she reached a final conclusion on whether to pursue a DPA on Sept. 16, some 12 days after the director of public prosecutions is said to have made a similar decision. She maintains that her decision should have ended any intervention by other ministers or political staff.
When asked by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid if she thought that was sufficient time to adequately consider a DPA, Drouin said that was not for her to say. "She did say in her testimony that she did her due diligence. I was not part of that due diligence exercise," Drouin said.
So 12 days after the DPP hand the file over to her, without involving her deputy minister, JWR decides DPA is a no go...wow that is a pretty lame due dilligance. I don't think I have bought a used car that quickly
When asked by Liberal MP Iqra Khalid if she thought that was sufficient time to adequately consider a DPA, Drouin said that was not for her to say. "She did say in her testimony that she did her due diligence. I was not part of that due diligence exercise," Drouin said.
So 12 days after the DPP hand the file over to her, without involving her deputy minister, JWR decides DPA is a no go...wow that is a pretty lame due dilligance. I don't think I have bought a used car that quickly
Unless the evidence against them is so overwhelming and damning that it was an easy decision.
Its not a matter of guilt, its a matter of public policy. Probablity of conviction is only one consideration of the DPA. Not even seeking an opinion or input from your deputy minister?
Add in a long history of domestic and foreign bribery and corruption. And breaking campaign finance laws?
Did you ever stop to think one of the reasons was to protect the Liberal Party from the appearance of cronyism and a scanal?
Unfortunately it appears the party is indeed actively involved in it.
After Wernick's testimony and especially after the Q&A, it is becoming clearer and clearer that the current partisan hearings method will kill the government, but it will fail to uncover the truth. Butts used the Kokanee defense and didn't completely stank out the joint, but then came sleazy Wernick and changed the channel. I think that we will need an inquiry into this. A former Privy Clerk, now a SNC executive, picks up the phone and just calls the current one, with the criminal case in the pipeline- well, that's just rotting corpse smell.
I often admire Bob Hepburn's thinking, but I also find he frequently gets it wrong, and this is one of those occasions. He sinks to tabloid-level by concerning himself with the tawdry non-issue of whether Raybould is a heroine, a juvenile thought of no importance. Since the column has been posted here as if that was valid concern, I offer my take.
He lists seven points he claims she fails on, and I don't think he makes a single one of them convincingly. Of course my thoughts are pure FACT:
1. He asks did manage the leak? Offers no evidence she did, but sneers that since she hasn't proven she didn't, she lacks integrity. FACT: As far as I know, no one asked. Innocence is the assumption, it is guilt that must be proven. FAIL to Bob
2. She was wrong about being pressured, because at the end of the day she had the final say and got her way. FACT: The end of the day has not yet come for SNC, but her decision pushed her out of Cabinet. FAIL to Bob
3. She cared only about the law, and gave no thought to the Liberal Party fortunes when she told her tale. FACT: She clearly said every effort was made to help Liberals by helping SNC, but that she herself could not. FAIL to Bob.
4. She was at fault for not resigning the moment she was given her new job at VA. FACT: She wishes neither the Liberals, nor the PM ill, just as she wishes Veterans no ill. When is thinking over a big decision a fault? FAIL to Bob
5. She was at fault for still trying to be part of the team after Trudeau moved her out of Justice. FACT: Same as 4. Replacing her was unforced, and clearly indicated Trudeau's desire to get the DPA he wants. FAIL to Bob
6: Was it the wrong call? He doesn't answer his own question, just lists the threatened costs in Quebec and Canada, which she repeatedly said she could not consider, and no authority has said otherwise. FAIL to Bob
7. First Nations will be hurt, because this means the Scheer PCs may be elected in October and their lot will get worse, not better. FACT: Entirely irrelevant and supported only by Bob's suppositions that Indigenous people are doing better under Justin, not by evidence the PCs will do them ill..
Clearly he thinks she's little better than a turncoat, but he's made no case that would persuade anyone to change an opinion they had already. What really disappoints in this piece is how useless it is on the issues, If you prefer to look at our politics as a comic book with a Justice League of heroes, and heroines, and lurking evil geniuses to be thwarted, he lays that out in primary colours, and without distracting evidence, details or balance, it's for you.
OK time-waster.
He lists seven points he claims she fails on, and I don't think he makes a single one of them convincingly. Of course my thoughts are pure FACT:
1. He asks did manage the leak? Offers no evidence she did, but sneers that since she hasn't proven she didn't, she lacks integrity. FACT: As far as I know, no one asked. Innocence is the assumption, it is guilt that must be proven. FAIL to Bob
2. She was wrong about being pressured, because at the end of the day she had the final say and got her way. FACT: The end of the day has not yet come for SNC, but her decision pushed her out of Cabinet. FAIL to Bob
3. She cared only about the law, and gave no thought to the Liberal Party fortunes when she told her tale. FACT: She clearly said every effort was made to help Liberals by helping SNC, but that she herself could not. FAIL to Bob.
4. She was at fault for not resigning the moment she was given her new job at VA. FACT: She wishes neither the Liberals, nor the PM ill, just as she wishes Veterans no ill. When is thinking over a big decision a fault? FAIL to Bob
5. She was at fault for still trying to be part of the team after Trudeau moved her out of Justice. FACT: Same as 4. Replacing her was unforced, and clearly indicated Trudeau's desire to get the DPA he wants. FAIL to Bob
6: Was it the wrong call? He doesn't answer his own question, just lists the threatened costs in Quebec and Canada, which she repeatedly said she could not consider, and no authority has said otherwise. FAIL to Bob
7. First Nations will be hurt, because this means the Scheer PCs may be elected in October and their lot will get worse, not better. FACT: Entirely irrelevant and supported only by Bob's suppositions that Indigenous people are doing better under Justin, not by evidence the PCs will do them ill..
Clearly he thinks she's little better than a turncoat, but he's made no case that would persuade anyone to change an opinion they had already. What really disappoints in this piece is how useless it is on the issues, If you prefer to look at our politics as a comic book with a Justice League of heroes, and heroines, and lurking evil geniuses to be thwarted, he lays that out in primary colours, and without distracting evidence, details or balance, it's for you.
OK time-waster.
She wishes the PM no ill? Are you joking? She has orchestrated everything to do harm directly to the PM with ZERO thought to the govt, party or colleagues. NADAI often admire Bob Hepburn's thinking, but I also find he frequently gets it wrong, and this is one of those occasions. He sinks to tabloid-level by concerning himself with the tawdry non-issue of whether Raybould is a heroine, a juvenile thought of no importance. Since the column has been posted here as if that was valid concern, I offer my take.
He lists seven points he claims she fails on, and I don't think he makes a single one of them convincingly. Of course my thoughts are pure FACT:
1. He asks did manage the leak? Offers no evidence she did, but sneers that since she hasn't proven she didn't, she lacks integrity. FACT: As far as I know, no one asked. Innocence is the assumption, it is guilt that must be proven. FAIL to Bob
2. She was wrong about being pressured, because at the end of the day she had the final say and got her way. FACT: The end of the day has not yet come for SNC, but her decision pushed her out of Cabinet. FAIL to Bob
3. She cared only about the law, and gave no thought to the Liberal Party fortunes when she told her tale. FACT: She clearly said every effort was made to help Liberals by helping SNC, but that she herself could not. FAIL to Bob.
4. She was at fault for not resigning the moment she was given her new job at VA. FACT: She wishes neither the Liberals, nor the PM ill, just as she wishes Veterans no ill. When is thinking over a big decision a fault? FAIL to Bob
5. She was at fault for still trying to be part of the team after Trudeau moved her out of Justice. FACT: Same as 4. Replacing her was unforced, and clearly indicated Trudeau's desire to get the DPA he wants. FAIL to Bob
6: Was it the wrong call? He doesn't answer his own question, just lists the threatened costs in Quebec and Canada, which she repeatedly said she could not consider, and no authority has said otherwise. FAIL to Bob
7. First Nations will be hurt, because this means the Scheer PCs may be elected in October and their lot will get worse, not better. FACT: Entirely irrelevant and supported only by Bob's suppositions that Indigenous people are doing better under Justin, not by evidence the PCs will do them ill..
Clearly he thinks she's little better than a turncoat, but he's made no case that would persuade anyone to change an opinion they had already. What really disappoints in this piece is how useless it is on the issues, If you prefer to look at our politics as a comic book with a Justice League of heroes, and heroines, and lurking evil geniuses to be thwarted, he lays that out in primary colours, and without distracting evidence, details or balance, it's for you.
OK time-waster.
I think you must have been drunk when you wrote this.
Not at all clear the DPA was the reason she was moved out. She was not a very good AG, DUI laws are appalling, right to die law sucked, Native justice framework stalled after over 4 effin years. Maybe he wanted someone who could get things done faster. The Libs have a plan B for SNC so the DPA is not critical.
Natives are doing better under Trudeau, he has invested focus and $ and their lot is much better with real, measureable results.
So it doesn't matter if they broke the law and are guilty, if it's considered not to be good public policy to convict them. Too bad for Brue McArthur that he didn't have a large number of employees that might be hurt by his convictions. He would still be a free man today.
Whats the benefit to not convicting Bruce McArthur? He has no other means of resolution of acts of murder. SNC is charged with Financial crimes. The can pay huge penalties and compensation for losses. In some countries there is a concept of "blood money" which I think is not so bad. Perhaps in a murder charge it would be something like, eligiability for parole would be considered at 10 years if you pay the victims families $5 million dollars. Something like that, and the survivors have a say if they want to offer such a deal.
Had she wished him ill she wouldn't have acquiesced to the re-assignement at all, and would likely would have quit the Party with alot of noise, perhaps even doing a Bouchard-Bernier to start a rival one. You'll have to cite at least one hostile thing she did to make your overstatement credible at all. The evidence we have is that she tried at least somewhat to go along with the deckchair shuffle.
No one but Justin can say why she was turfed from Justice. But we can all speculate, just as you have, and SNC is the closest plausible event. By comparison, Right-to-Die was ages ago, for all that it sucked (and was steered through as a healthcare issue if I recall) and the others cited are equally dubious and distant as causes. Nor have they been cited as such, except by outsiders, although they certainly buttress the idea that the so-called shuffle was a demotion.
I certainly agree that Indigenous people are doing somewhat better since Trudeau, but I can't see why you thought it relevant to repeat that. Bob supposes the same, but his unsupported point was about a PC regime undoing that, as I noted. It is sheer speculation, and has nothing to do with Raybould or Trudeau.
Shall I assume you were pissed when you hit the Post button? Your posts are usually are more effective and less excitable, and very little of this latest is relevant to the article you started the thread about. Certainly there was little reason to quote my entire post in reply, since it appeared just above.
----------
PS: Anyone born here is a native. That's why we use general terms like Indigenous or First Nations, or names of specific nations like Haudenosaunee to distinguish those natives whose ancestors have been here since time immemorial from folks who only arrive within the last five centuries. And since you expressed interest, I haven't had a drink in decades.
Nonsense, taking the VA job, then quitting AFTER she leaked the story was FAR more damaging then if she just stepped down from cabinet. She had to take the job, create the context, then light the match. You are almost as naive as Trudeau has been
Butts explained why she was turfed, and he was perhaps being kind as she was a really shitty AG and Justice minister
IF she leaked the story, perhaps. Again, just notty's opinion, without evidence to support it.
But why would you suppose a minister that unhappy with her new appointment would ever "just step down from cabinet" without making the most powerful statement she could about why? Instead, she did and said nothing until someone leaked and made it pointless to 'go along to get along' any further. By then her statement and any damage it may have done to Trudeau was an anti-climax. All of that points to "her truth": That she held no animus towards her Leader or her Party, but couldn't continue in a Cabinet that would have to support the decision she would not and could not support. The leak foreclosed any other course like abstaining, or remaining.
One more afterthought: We should all try to avoid Trump's Typical Trap: The more you slag the guy you just fired, the worse it reflects on you for hiring him in the first place, and for keeping him on as long as you did. If she was as shitty as you say, then Justin must verge on cretinous not to have dumped her sooner.
Who else could do it, who else was party to the details? Either she leaked it or someone she leaked it to leaked it. In either case cabinet confidentiality was broken by her.
