Author Topic: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case  (Read 63455 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Journeyman

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 548,400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,054
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #950 on: April 12, 2019, 12:21:36 »
This story is in Canadian politics. Why would you bring up the US?
It's a simple comparison;  you're torn apart by periodic behaviours in our Prime Minister that are the foundational bedrock of Trump's personality.... a political leader you clearly worship.

The chiding occurred because that occurrence wasn't a comparison between the two leaders, but a question asked (in typical handwringing fashion) specifically about why Trudeau wasn't being treated the same (not about Trudeau's behaviour specifically)... in the US President thread... therefore, off topic.  And yes, I fully expect that difference to continue eluding you.

Regardless, expecting your response, I let it go.... until your dizzying intellect went that extra step to proclaim your belief in a Liberal policy of an "overwhelming desire to kill Canada," which drew me back into the inevitable train-wreck.
       ::)

Back to IGNORE

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 142,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,497
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #951 on: April 12, 2019, 12:30:30 »
FOIA is an American thing. 

In Canada it is ATIP.

I stopped using ATIP outside of government because no one knew what I was talking about. I have done many both asking and providing.

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 142,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,497
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #952 on: April 12, 2019, 12:35:26 »
Unless someone's read something different I haven't seen (more than likely, given the speed of events unfolding), that's still an IF if we believe what The Canadian Press wrote:We know from the Speaker's decision that ...So, as Colin P said, $5 and a form may free up that tidbit of information ...

The law is explicit, they must vote.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 217,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,553
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #953 on: April 12, 2019, 13:00:30 »
The law is explicit, they must vote.

The law says they must vote. It doesn’t explicitly state what the question must be. 49.8(1) says they “shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:”

So it does not say they must yes/no it at that time. If they voted and the result was to defer the matter to a party convention to put the question to the party more broadly, I don’t see that the law as written prohibits that. A vote was held ‘in respect of’ the question. Not liking the answer doesn’t make it illegitimate.

It’s helpful when considering questions of law to read the law in question, and to do it with an eye to detail and precision of meaning. While Chong’s Reform Act seemed like a political silver bullet for the opposition when Philpott filed her question on the matter, it doesn’t look like the facts are matching the wants on this once scrutinized.

October isn’t far. Patience.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 417,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,966
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #954 on: April 12, 2019, 13:25:41 »
The law says they must vote. It doesn’t explicitly state what the question must be. 49.8(1) says they “shall conduct a separate vote among the caucus members in respect of each of the following questions:”
On the "what they're voting on", you're right.  On the how, though, the law says (49.8 (3)), "The vote of each caucus member, in each vote, is to be recorded"  so the record must be SOMEWHERE.
October isn’t far. Patience.
Tick, tick, tick, indeed ...
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 217,445
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,553
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #955 on: April 12, 2019, 13:29:06 »
On the "what they're voting on", you're right.  On the how, though, the law says (49.8 (3)), "The vote of each caucus member, in each vote, is to be recorded"  so the record must be SOMEWHERE.Tick, tick, tick, indeed ...

Oh, absolutely. But as I mentioned a couple posts back, if the vote had simply not been hell, JP or JWR would likely have hauled that fact out by now. The statement to the speaker that it was voted to be deferred to the party convention is both completely plausible, and easily refutable had that not been the case. By all means ask for receipts, but I don't see any room for deception on that particular point. It would be absurd to even try.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 109,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,312
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #956 on: April 12, 2019, 17:35:54 »
I stopped using ATIP outside of government because no one knew what I was talking about. I have done many both asking and providing.

Fair enough.  In a past life I was a an information officer at the privacy commission.  A small stint but very eye opening.
Optio

Online Colin P

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 142,760
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,497
  • Civilian
    • http://www.pacific.ccg-gcc.gc.ca
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #957 on: April 12, 2019, 22:23:22 »
Back in the day, ATIPs cost $800 per hour of mainframe use......

Offline milnews.ca

  • Info Curator, Baker & Food Slut
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 417,285
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 21,966
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #958 on: April 13, 2019, 07:01:24 »
Back in the day, ATIPs cost $800 per hour of mainframe use......
And now, some are told to ONLY include time spent searching hard-copy files in the "time needed" box, not searching electronic files.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Online mariomike

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 506,960
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,393
    • The job.
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #959 on: April 13, 2019, 08:01:20 »
And if SNC goes, the good people of Toronto can kiss goodbye to the maintenance of highway 407-ETR for awhile until the situation is resolved, because it is owned and operated by SNC.

Regarding the 407, received this in my pension plan news,

Quote
OMERS Announces Signing of Agreement for Acquisition of Stake in 407 International Inc.

April 05, 2019

OMERS Infrastructure today announced that it has signed a purchase and sale agreement with SNC-Lavalin Group Inc. for the acquisition of a 10.01% stake in 407 International Inc., which holds a concession over 407 Express Toll Route (“407 ETR”).  The purchase price consists of an upfront payment of C$3.0 billion. The sale is subject to certain shareholders’ rights, including rights-of-first refusal.
https://www.omers.com/News/Investing-News/2019/OMERS-stake-407-international-inc



Offline Oldgateboatdriver

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 140,725
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,649
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #960 on: April 13, 2019, 10:45:37 »
Oh, absolutely. But as I mentioned a couple posts back, if the vote had simply not been hell, JP or JWR would likely have hauled that fact out by now. The statement to the speaker that it was voted to be deferred to the party convention is both completely plausible, and easily refutable had that not been the case. By all means ask for receipts, but I don't see any room for deception on that particular point. It would be absurd to even try.

Except that it is improper for a voter - any voter in any type of vote - to actually vote on behalf of someone without that right to vote. It is for members of Parliament here to vote individually as part of their role as MP on how they want their caucus to work. It's not for them to defer and act for the party. If they had differed by a few weeks/months so they could each consult their constituent - that is people at large in their riding - that would be OK as they represent those people - not the party.

Also, I feel that there is more blame to go around here, as we are three years into the mandate: Those recorded votes are supposed to be forwarded to the Speaker. So why has his office not contacted the various party leaders yet to inquire of the votes and their records? I think that is the reason he ruled the way he did: He also screwed up.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 206,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,690
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #961 on: April 13, 2019, 10:58:07 »
Thanks for that OGBD.

I have been puzzling over the issue of who is responsible for administering the Parliament Act since the Speaker of the House of Commons said it wasn't his job.

If not his, then whose?

In some senses Parliament is the ultimate in self-regulating associations - like Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers and such-like.  Their authority derives from them effectively policing themselves so that the courts don't have to step in.

Parliament says the courts can't regulate it.  But what if it won't regulate (I should say "effectively regulate") itself then it risks having itself regulated.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Online Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 65,055
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,782
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #962 on: May 08, 2019, 12:08:03 »
Given that today the Public Prosecution Service of Canada elected to stay/withdraw (not sure which yet) the charge against VADM Norman, it will be interesting to see their next moves in this case.  Will a similar decision of "no likelihood of conviction" be rendered?  Will The DPP, who decided to stay/withdraw the Norman charge, now decide that a DPA is the way ahead for SNC-Lavailn?
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 218,382
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,478
Re: Alleged PMO obstruction in SNC Lavalin case
« Reply #963 on: May 29, 2019, 19:14:31 »
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/snc-lavalin-trial-corruption-bribery-1.5153429

SNC-Lavalin to stand trial on corruption charges, Quebec judge rules

Quebec engineering giant accused of bribing Libyan officials while Gadhafi in power

Jonathan Montpetit · CBC News · Posted: May 29, 2019 10:35 AM ET

There is enough evidence against SNC-Lavalin for the engineering corporation to be tried on fraud and bribery charges, a Quebec court judge ruled Wednesday.

<snip>

Wednesday's court decision, handed down in Montreal, followed an extended preliminary inquiry into accusations that federal prosecutors filed in 2015.

<snip>

Justice Claude Leblond had the option of dismissing the charges if he found there was no chance of a conviction.

<snip>

Asked whether a DPA was still possible, Roy said simply: "The director of public prosecutions has made a decision in that regard."

<snip>

No date has yet been set for SNC-Lavalin's criminal trial. The corporation returns to court June 7, when it will indicate whether it wants a trial by judge or jury.

<snip>

The new federal justice minister, David Lametti, has so far refused to comment on whether the government is still considering offering SNC-Lavalin a DPA. Legally, he can do so up until there is a verdict in the criminal case.

Lametti, on Wednesday, maintained his silence on the issue. He said he wanted to ensure his statements did not influence the court proceedings.

But the federal infrastructure minister, François-Philippe Champagne, reiterated the Liberal government's concerns about the damage a criminal trial could cause SNC-Lavalin.

<snip>