Sign in to follow this  
DonLever

The SNC-Lavalin Scandal - Jody Wilson-Raybould Refuses to leave Office

Recommended Posts

20 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Fall 2019, the right honourable PM Andrew Scheer.

Well...half of that is correct....B)

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, naslund.is.king said:

I sure hope so...Ontario Quebec and BC need to realize how much he's hurting the rest of the country 

Sorry to put you guys in that pot but the rest of Canada's in a recession

 

Sorry what

20 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

This right there

13 minutes ago, naslund.is.king said:

Fake god damn news.

Ive heard that fake narrative for years..its constant.. canada is in a boom,busy etc sorry if your in Sask Alberta Saskatchewan or outside the major hubs of canada there is no work for the working class 

Half my workforce has had to move  to bc to find constant work.

Industry and major commercial projects have died across this country in the past  6 years...its sad when someone like me listened to the government in the push to keep people in trades (the working class) for nothing

I represent the union and our workers and its a sad state looking at all these young men who are lost with no end in sight after years

 

 

Sorry for you that you're working in a depressed sector of the economy but that in no way shape or form proves anything you've claimed.  Sask is down in part due to crop issues but also rail issues.  Selling a few things 5 years ago came back to haunt them.  Oil and energy are hurting because America has no need for our energy.  Industry and major commercial projects are still very much happening.  You represent a union, not THE union or the workers across the country.  Unemployment rates are static, debt to GDP is decreasing, inflation currently in check.

 

Sorry bud, that opinion doesn't fly in the face of simple facts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ryan Strome said:

Excuse me... He said no when she told him how inappropriate it was. Are you now against JWR?

 

Should stood up for what is right, I don't care your political preference Canada needs more people like her.

No, not at all. 

 

No she stood up for the option she preferred as AG - that is to not get involved with the decisions of her justice department. Even though she did have that legal option to do so, its not something she personally viewed as appropriate. 

 

I think she was a fantastic AG who made real changes for the better. But its clear from today that she wasn't necessarily good political team mate. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, naslund.is.king said:

Boom and bust industry...didnt realize construction and skilled workers were not a necessity...hey anyone can build a building sheltering human lives

Tradesmen must be like Gold miners I guess 

 

 

Construction workers in the prairies are hurting right now because it was predicated on record growth over 8 years.  That ended the same time the oil cycle closed.  That has nothing to do with Trudeau.  You claim half your workforce moved to BC for work...in the NDP held BC....

 

I'm a former tradesman and nothing you say is jiving, like at all

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

No, not at all. 

 

No she stood up for the option she preferred as AG - that is to not get involved with the decisions of her justice department. Even though she did have that legal option to do so, its not something she personally viewed as appropriate. 

 

I think she was a fantastic AG who made real changes for the better. But its clear from today that she wasn't necessarily good political team mate. 

You mean, it's possible that someone was removed from their position for not towing the line?  Why does that sound so familiar...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jimmy McGill said:

or he's trying to keep jobs in Quebec. FFS if this was Calgary and Harper, no one in the CPC would be complaining, at all.

 

So she was pressured. Welcome to politics.  I only care if it moved into something unethical and illegal. 

When Alberta had enough of what the Conservatives were doing ( provincially ) they voted them out so I disagree there would be no complaining. So its ok to do whatever possible to save 9000 jobs ( which in reality would probably be alot less because the contracts SNC lose out on can be picked up by other Canadian companies ) but Trudeau barely blinks an eye when over 120,000 jobs were lost in Alberta .

 

After hearing her testimony do you consider what they did to her unethical ? Do you agree she should have lost her position because she didnt give in to there pressure ?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

The cpc is coming on strong in Quebec. Mulroney was a Quebec mp and he won the biggest majority in Canadian history.

Your gonna be dissapointed few more years of liberal rule incoming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheAce said:

When Alberta had enough of what the Conservatives were doing ( provincially ) they voted them out so I disagree there would be no complaining. So its ok to do whatever possible to save 9000 jobs ( which in reality would probably be alot less because the contracts SNC lose out on can be picked up by other Canadian companies ) but Trudeau barely blinks an eye when over 120,000 jobs were lost in Alberta .

 

After hearing her testimony do you consider what they did to her unethical ? Do you agree she should have lost her position because she didnt give in to there pressure ?

So buying the trans mountain project to ensure it goes through is "barely" something? lets get back to reality please. 

 

it wasn't doing "whatever possible" it was asking her to consider a legal option that would help preserve jobs. There's nothing wrong with that. 

 

No I don't consider it unethical unless more comes to light, just reminding a minister of the consequences of a choice isn't unethical. I'd need to hear more about what exactly was said before pronouncing it unethical, but 2-3 phone calls or meeting per month isn't on its own unethical. She herself said Trudeau didn't want it to be seen as interference. 

 

I think she serves at the pleasure of the PM like every single minister in our history ever has. He doesn't need a reason to make a cabinet shuffle. 

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

So buying the trans mountain project to ensure it goes through is "barely" something? lets get back to reality please

 

it wasn't doing "whatever possible" it was asking her to consider a legal option that would help preserve jobs. There's nothing wrong with that. 

 

No I don't consider it unethical unless more comes to light, just reminding a minister of the consequences of a choice isn't unethical. I'd need to hear more about what exactly was said before pronouncing it unethical, but 2-3 phone calls or meeting per month isn't on its own unethical. She herself said Trudeau didn't want it to be seen as interference. 

 

I think she serves at the pleasure of the PM like every single minister in our history ever has. He doesn't need a reason to make a cabinet shuffle. 

 

 

and where has that got them ?   Trudeau himself admitted he wants to phase out Alberta's energy sector which means a loss of jobs. He cared about these 'jobs' because its in Quebec and he knows thats where he needs his votes. He pretty much admitted this when trying to change her mind on the decision.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

you mean a legal option? 

 

its all great to be about social justice, when its not your job being lost. 

 

The legal options for SNC aren't the issue here, its whether or not the pressure put on JWR was illegal, unethical, inappropriate, or just big pants politics. 

no, at the heart of this it was a decision made by the director of public prosecutions. There would clearly be legal reasons why it was deemed not appropriate. Why should the AG be pressured by several people including the PM over a decision made by DPP, it undermines the whole idea of justice in this country if there are different outcomes based on what the PM thinks. To me that would veer down the dictator route.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheAce said:

and where has that got them ?   Trudeau himself admitted he wants to phase out Alberta's energy sector which means a loss of jobs. He cared about these 'jobs' because its in Quebec and he knows thats where he needs his votes. He pretty much admitted this when trying to change her mind on the decision.

and even knowing buying the KM project wouldn't get him a single vote in AB, he did that too. Maybe he actually does care about Canadian jobs?

 

 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, TheAce said:

and where has that got them ?   Trudeau himself admitted he wants to phase out Alberta's energy sector which means a loss of jobs. He cared about these 'jobs' because its in Quebec and he knows thats where he needs his votes. He pretty much admitted this when trying to change her mind on the decision.

Yes phase out...over the next 20 years.  Which is intelligent as it ensures jobs and new industry growing at the time others are waning.

 

As for the only cared about...we just had a PM that flat out said he didn't need Quebec, and also said we should build a firewall around Alberta.  There's no prize for being a PM favouring a specific sector or area of the country.  They all do it

2 minutes ago, otherwise said:

no, at the heart of this it was a decision made by the director of public prosecutions. There would clearly be legal reasons why it was deemed not appropriate. Why should the AG be pressured by several people including the PM over a decision made by DPP, it undermines the whole idea of justice in this country if there are different outcomes based on what the PM thinks. To me that would veer down the dictator route.

Is this like a government meeting with a major corporation during an investigation in order to save jobs but also protect wealthy donors?

 

*cough* KPMG *cough* 

 

Wish people knew that this literally just happened like 5 years ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Jimmy McGill said:

and even knowing buying the KM project wouldn't get him a single vote in AB, he did that too. Maybe he actually does care about Canadian jobs?

 

 

so when the saudi's basically wanted nothing to do with us, except still sell us there oil, why didnt he tell them we dont need there oil and just get the oil from Alberta which would have saved 10 times the amount of jobs that he is claiming to do with SNC ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, otherwise said:

no, at the heart of this it was a decision made by the director of public prosecutions. There would clearly be legal reasons why it was deemed not appropriate. Why should the AG be pressured by several people including the PM over a decision made by DPP, it undermines the whole idea of justice in this country if there are different outcomes based on what the PM thinks. To me that would veer down the dictator route.

the justice minister has the power to change that decision. So yes it is a legal option. 

 

Why should an AG be pressured? thats a good question. Right now they can be because they wear two hats, a political and legal one, thats why the discussion came up today about whether or not Canada should spilt up those two roles. 

 

Its not dictatorship, Trudeau can't make up laws as he goes along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, TheAce said:

so when the saudi's basically wanted nothing to do with us, except still sell us there oil, why didnt he tell them we dont need there oil and just get the oil from Alberta which would have saved 10 times the amount of jobs that he is claiming to do with SNC ?

by what means? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Yes phase out...over the next 20 years.  Which is intelligent as it ensures jobs and new industry growing at the time others are waning.

 

As for the only cared about...we just had a PM that flat out said he didn't need Quebec, and also said we should build a firewall around Alberta.  There's no prize for being a PM favouring a specific sector or area of the country.  They all do it

Is this like a government meeting with a major corporation during an investigation in order to save jobs but also protect wealthy donors?

 

*cough* KPMG *cough* 

 

Wish people knew that this literally just happened like 5 years ago

Can oil ever be phased out ?  It will always be needed......

 

And there is no denying that you can find dirt on every political party and every politician, but JT campaigned on being different and transparent. id say he has failed on that promise

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first time in a long time that this thread is getting more traction than Trump one.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, CBH1926 said:

This is the first time in a long time that this thread is getting more traction than Trump one.

No kidding....I bet Strome is hosting a kegger tonight....

  • Haha 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TheAce said:

Can oil ever be phased out ?  It will always be needed......

 

And there is no denying that you can find dirt on every political party and every politician, but JT campaigned on being different and transparent. id say he has failed on that promise

Oil does more than go into vehicles.So you can never really phase out oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Jimmy McGill said:

the justice minister has the power to change that decision. So yes it is a legal option. 

 

Why should an AG be pressured? thats a good question. Right now they can be because they wear two hats, a political and legal one, thats why the discussion came up today about whether or not Canada should spilt up those two roles. 

 

Its not dictatorship, Trudeau can't make up laws as he goes along. 

but why would she undermine that decision? it would basically be saying that there had been an error in judgement. which it doesn't appear to have happened so, no it was not a legal option. SNC have a history of corruption so I don't think that they should get a slap on the wrist this time.

 

I think AGs can feel pressure even if they are separate. It takes integrity to not cave to that pressure.

dictators can also bend the justice system to suit their needs or wants.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.