I was watching The National ((aka The Whore of Babylon among those who reflexively defend all things Liberal) last evening, and was surprised to learn that there seems to be no basis for the claim that 9,000 jobs could be lost should SNC-Lavalin register a criminal conviction that would bar it from bidding on federal contracts for 10 years. As you will see in the following report, the company is currently involved in a number of such projects worth billions that will take years to complete, and there is nothing in a criminal conviction that would prevent them from bidding on provincial contacts, many of which they are currently involved in.
Which leaves one to draw a tentative conclusion: that the alleged interventions to get Wilson-Raybould to grant SNC-Lavalin a DPA was prompted, not by economic, but rather political, concerns. Being a Quebec-based international company, like that perennial basket case Bombardier, the feds felt they had to run interference to maintain their support in La Belle Province.
Go to the 28-minute mark of the following to see the full story:
You are quite correct. Most of the hysteria among our press, pundits and conservative politicians should be seen as simple anti Quebec racism.
ReplyDeleteThat is not what I was suggesting here, rumleyfips, and I think you know that.
DeleteI queried this claim a few days back and that set me to exploring major construction contractors in Canada. There are, I recall, three companies in Lavalin's "top tier" league and a dozen or so "second tier" outfits.
ReplyDeleteIf Lavalin was barred from bidding federal government contracts, the work would go to other first and second tier firms. The problem is that Lavalin's competitors are mainly Alberta and Ontario-based companies.
Quebec, as I've read it, is Canada's largest "have not" province when it comes to equalization. I get the sense that Lavalin must be Ottawa's ringer on these tender calls to get more federal revenue flowing into the province. The idea of that revenue going to Alberta instead must be unappealing to a government that isn't going to be picking up many Wild Rose seats but is deeply dependent on holding its seats in Quebec.
Well, I think we see politics trumping both the law and morality, which is no surprise, eh Mound?
DeleteHi Lorne: Butts and the other liberal cronies who gave testimony really think that they can manipulate Canadians into believing their lies. I made myself listen to Trudeau, the mouthpiece frontman for the real neoliberal government and what he delivered was a memorized lesson written to convince Canadians that this SNC-Lavalin scandal is just a difference of opinion, nothing to see here.
ReplyDeleteI found the time 8:00 a.m. in the morning when he spoke interesting. I guess the folks out west will have had to get up at dawn to listen to this babbling idiot. Trudeau's progressive credentials are a sham. In fact everything about him is a sham. The extent of the government corruption and lying is jaw dropping.
Canadians I think see through the lies, especially Trudeau's, but I don't think their seeing through far enough to see their neoliberal corporate elite supporting government, which is what all of the lying is meant to hide.
Hi Pamela. So good to hear from you. It has been awhile. Hope you are well. The neoliberalism of this government is there for all who care to look. Whether it is in a massive purchase to help out a pipeline company or the creation of a law, hidden in an omnibus bill to benefit SNC-Lavlin, the Liberals have been less than subtle in showing their true values and orientation.
DeleteHi Lorne. Yes I am well and it's good to be talking, so to speak, with you and others of course on this blog. I agree that the neoliberalism of this government is there for all to see, but sadly I think many Canadians and maybe most don't know what neoliberalism is and the destruction it's responsible for , including their own sovereignty. The ballot box is not the solution to the problems our country faces and frankly given the present neoliberal agenda of pretty well all political parties in Canada, I don't know what the solution is. It's important though to keep on looking for a solution and that's what me and I'm sure many other people are doing.
DeleteHey, Pamela. I noticed your reference to "Trudeau's progressive credentials." To my mind, the last vestiges of progressive thought were purged from the Liberal Party during the Ignatieff years if not earlier. I always imagined myself part of the progressive faction of the Liberal Party. That was what kept me a faithful Liberal for 40 years. I didn't leave the Liberal Party. It left me.
DeleteTrudeau talked a good game during the 2015 election campaign. I was nearly fooled. It didn't take long after he won his false majority before he showed his true colours.
I suppose what bothers me most is that we're seeing this affliction throughout the West, notably the UK, the US and Canada. We're getting absorbed in what are really "process" issues and getting very little done on substantive problems. Look at Britain. Theresa May is just three weeks away on Brexit and there's still no consensus emerging in the House of Commons. Each major party has fractured into factions that often see MPs crossing party lines to ally with like-minded MPs from other parties. May has an insurgency raging within her minority caucus. And day, by dwindling day, nothing gets done.
On this side of the pond we're also getting mired in process issues. What a mess. We're forgetting the real challenges of the day, preoccupied with scandal.
Mound:Did you work for the liberal party under Pierre Trudeau?
Delete.. a few more thoughts re l'affaire Lavalin
ReplyDelete- its my understanding the Amendment re PDA's & Criminal Law was hidden in the Table of Contents of said Omnibus Budget Bill. A national news level 'journalist' claimed it was sneaked in, another howled it was tucked in a dark obscure corner.. Deary me ..
Only Paul Wells has noted Butts said the Trudeau Government 'understood' a PDA could be offered up to and including a verdict. Trudeau reiterated that this morning. Presumably the verdict still follows a trial. Thus Canadians of all stripes need to see the actual Law, hear what Ms Roussel and Ms Wilson-Reybould believe or know plus see the legal opinions (in writing) and know the author of the opinions each of them plus the Trudeau Government operated under.
Is this why we are trapped in a hissing conundrum .. as MainMedia gyrates in convolutions & suppositions, and the Nation polarizes accordingly? Its mystifying !
Last I looked Laws were clearly stated, speed limits set, we have boundaries during the Grey Cup, the puck must cross the red line to be a 'goal', Andrew Scheer does not hold a degree in Criminal Law.. we have this concept of 'parameters' & thus a heavy object may take flight or float, the price of gold may be whimsical, but there are no points for artistic impression when selling it.
I've commented here & there to the likely suspects.. but as Mound suggests.. it becomes boring and demoralizing.. a dangerous status quo ..
I saw a clip recently of Thomas Mulcair offering his opinion on this imbroglio, Sal. He was of the opinion that had the Liberals been open about the DPA and its purpose of offering succor to a company like SNC-Lavalin as an economic measure to save jobs, they would not now be in the midst of this maelstrom. I'm not sure I agree with his analysis, but that they stuck it into the omnibus budget bill, the kind Trudeau used to decry when Harper did it, is troubling, not to say hypocritical, in my view.
DeleteHi Lorne: I've been listening to this Lady on CPAC. She is a judge and she has explained the legal context all the way thrpugh this SNC-Lavalin scenario. I listened to what she had to say abouts Butts testimony and it was really good. She explains legalities so lay persons like me can understand whats legally going on.. If your interested here's the link.
Deletehttps://youtu.be/vNCZnVu7Zp4
Lorne: I should have said former Judge.
DeleteThank you, Pamela. I will check it out.
DeleteThanks a lot for that Youtube link, Pamela.
ReplyDeleteI watched it just now, and found it important. An actual judge holds forth on the Liberal sham show in clear unambiguous sentences. It's glorious to cut through the spin. A independent enquiry is needed to get at the truth.
Butts doesn't do well with her - at all. Seems to have no clue about independence of the AG and PPS - just another handle to pull for political purposes. Also he was armed with PMO documents he should have left in his office when he resigned. All around somewhat of a rat IMO, as I had already deduced yesterday listening to his BS.
Everyone who comes here should watch the clip forthwith. And if I may be unambiguous myself, rumleyfips needs to watch it twice IMO. There's a difference between reality and fantasy.
BM
You're welcome Anonymous . I listened to Butts also.I found it incredible, the verbal liberties he was allowed to take by babbling on and on regarding a period of time, where JWR was not allowed to speak. The whole thing is so obviously a liberal cover up and not a very sophisticated one. This is the first time I have listened to Butts and frankly, given his reputation of being a political powerhouse, I found him to be mediocre at best even sleazy.
DeleteI found the piece quite edifying, Pamela. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome Lorne.
ReplyDelete