Battle of the Initials
If we put aside the unnecessarily quiet and pretzel gymnastics process to get a Remediation Agreement for SNC Lavalin we can pretty much figure out the mess.
JWR would not overturn the DPP position that SNC would not be invited to achieve a Remediation Agreement?
SNC had a fit?
PMO and JPT sort of expressed their desire to see SNC get an invitation to the RA party.?
JWR did not agree but JPT told her it was her call?
Cabinet shuffle required to get desired result for SNC?
Obvious choice Scott Brison perhaps for more than one reason - gets offered plum position with BMO?
After-all BMO would also be very interested in seeing a favourable deal for SNC?
BMO executive who is also SNC executive makes that happen?
GMB probably facilitated and assisted with strategy on above?
JPT has shuffle to deal with Brison departure and removes JWR from post?
JWR gets enraged at the realization that is was her decision on SNC but not her call on who gets to serve in what capacity in the Cabinet of JPT. (this is real evident in body language at second swearing in)
JPT chooses SNC RA friendly new Justice Minister?
JWR and GMB feel all under control until the Globe and Mail story?
After quick strategy review - standard speaking note was achieved and PMO JPT and GMB confident in solicitor-client privilege will keep JWR quiet?
JWR hears JPT speak for her (I spoke to her 2 times and everything ok) further inflamed by Liberals saying things like "Jody-Centric" "difficult" etc.
JWR quits Cabinet retains counsel.
GMB and JPT and PMO have new crisis.
Throughout the communications strategy has been horrible.
So JWR wants GMB gone - wants new Cabinet post - wants to be publicly justified?
GMB takes hit - Liberals make-up - nothing to see here returns?
New speaking notes for JPT. He reads out legislative authority of DPP (perhaps he should have done that when the Budget contained the change to the Criminal Code for SNC)?
Controlled committee? Ethics violations have not hurt JPT yet - so probably won't now?
Will Canadians ever learn the truth? Unlikely
What happens with SNC now?
How is it SNC Executive has case thrown out? Who dropped the ball there?
Will the parliament repeal the RA DPA and do the process more openly and properly?
Transparency? no
Truth? no
Punish Corruption? no
somebody leaked something to Globe and Mail right? Who's benefit was that for?
Meanwhile Vice-Admiral Mark Norman charged with breach of trust?Who's benefit was that for?
Speaking truth to power? We'll see if the electorate does that this year.
Showing posts with label gm butts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label gm butts. Show all posts
Thursday, February 21, 2019
Monday, February 18, 2019
The legislative sprint for SNC Lavalin
Sometimes it is worthwhile to review a sequence of events.
As it relates to the SNC situation that we find our Country transfixed by - the discussion around the deluge of lobbying by the company as they sat charged with serious criminal offences - has been somewhat vetted.
Many have also talked about the fact that changes to the Criminal Code were buried in a Budget Bill. Most seem to find that inappropriate.
Obviously there are continued questions and escalating mistrust which will likely continue to haunt the PMO and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - as long as there are no comments from Jody Wilson-Raybould.
This post however will review a surely impossible sequence of events that lead up to the tabled change to the Criminal Code within the Budget Bill.
Let's make this short. It will add to the call for investigative measures to take place regarding this SNC mess.
You've probably heard by now that Canadians were told that the government was considering Deferred Prosecution Agreements. The spin - partially true - was that the public could have commented on this idea. Let's say the MP's did not do a full court press to constituents on this very important matter. The MSM were not all aflutter with advising Canadians of this very important consultation process.
Putting that aside - the consultation took place between September 25th - December 08 2017.
The report on the consultations found (PRESS HERE) was dated February 22nd 2018. The report is a general summary of what was heard or submitted by participants, a copy of the questions given to participants to answer, and a paragraph at the end of report titles "Next Steps", The following is that paragraph: The Government of Canada will further review the feedback received and assess whether enhancements to the Integrity Regime are warranted to ensure that the Regime continues to achieve its objectives, is efficient in doing so, and addresses new trends and risks in a constantly changing marketplace. Feedback will also be used by the Government of Canada in considering the possibility of introducing a Canadian DPA regime as an additional tool for prosecutors, to be used in appropriate circumstances, to address corporate crime. (emphasis added)
Further the last paragraph reads: While this public consultation has ended, the Government of Canada remains committed to hearing from interested parties regarding both the Integrity Regime and DPAs.
So on February 22nd of 2018 the report for consideration - to be assessed and reviewed - and even to possibly continue to hear from other people was released. It could be reviewed by Canadians and Parliamentarians alike. Let's have a discussion kind of tone.
5 days later there is a Budget Bill presented to the House of Commons that included the changes to the Criminal Code on these matters.
The proposed law was written and presented to Parliament 5 days after the report is released for assessment, review, and even more invited commentary.
Please take the time to think about that. In 5 short days 3 months of material and findings were reviewed - assessed - and already presented for passage of the Budget Bill.
Any reasonably minded person would conclude the proposed changes to the Criminal Code were already written before the report was released.
Any reasonably minded person knows that Criminal Code changes just don't happen that way or that fast.
The report does not allow Canadians to see who said what - and what exactly was being submitted.
But lucky for Canadians - SNC Lavalin put its submission on their site.
Have a look at the report referenced above and then the changes to the Criminal Code (PRESS HERE) and then decide who influenced our law.
Undue influence? Need to get the fix in place for SNC in a timely manner?
Next post will deal with the change in language from Deferred Prosecution Agreements to Remediation Agreements. Funny that when GM Butts resigned - he actually used the term Deferred Prosecution Agreements instead of Remediation Agreements - the latter of which is actually law.
As it relates to the SNC situation that we find our Country transfixed by - the discussion around the deluge of lobbying by the company as they sat charged with serious criminal offences - has been somewhat vetted.
Many have also talked about the fact that changes to the Criminal Code were buried in a Budget Bill. Most seem to find that inappropriate.
Obviously there are continued questions and escalating mistrust which will likely continue to haunt the PMO and Prime Minister Justin Trudeau - as long as there are no comments from Jody Wilson-Raybould.
This post however will review a surely impossible sequence of events that lead up to the tabled change to the Criminal Code within the Budget Bill.
Let's make this short. It will add to the call for investigative measures to take place regarding this SNC mess.
You've probably heard by now that Canadians were told that the government was considering Deferred Prosecution Agreements. The spin - partially true - was that the public could have commented on this idea. Let's say the MP's did not do a full court press to constituents on this very important matter. The MSM were not all aflutter with advising Canadians of this very important consultation process.
Putting that aside - the consultation took place between September 25th - December 08 2017.
The report on the consultations found (PRESS HERE) was dated February 22nd 2018. The report is a general summary of what was heard or submitted by participants, a copy of the questions given to participants to answer, and a paragraph at the end of report titles "Next Steps", The following is that paragraph: The Government of Canada will further review the feedback received and assess whether enhancements to the Integrity Regime are warranted to ensure that the Regime continues to achieve its objectives, is efficient in doing so, and addresses new trends and risks in a constantly changing marketplace. Feedback will also be used by the Government of Canada in considering the possibility of introducing a Canadian DPA regime as an additional tool for prosecutors, to be used in appropriate circumstances, to address corporate crime. (emphasis added)
Further the last paragraph reads: While this public consultation has ended, the Government of Canada remains committed to hearing from interested parties regarding both the Integrity Regime and DPAs.
So on February 22nd of 2018 the report for consideration - to be assessed and reviewed - and even to possibly continue to hear from other people was released. It could be reviewed by Canadians and Parliamentarians alike. Let's have a discussion kind of tone.
5 days later there is a Budget Bill presented to the House of Commons that included the changes to the Criminal Code on these matters.
The proposed law was written and presented to Parliament 5 days after the report is released for assessment, review, and even more invited commentary.
Please take the time to think about that. In 5 short days 3 months of material and findings were reviewed - assessed - and already presented for passage of the Budget Bill.
Any reasonably minded person would conclude the proposed changes to the Criminal Code were already written before the report was released.
Any reasonably minded person knows that Criminal Code changes just don't happen that way or that fast.
The report does not allow Canadians to see who said what - and what exactly was being submitted.
But lucky for Canadians - SNC Lavalin put its submission on their site.
Have a look at the report referenced above and then the changes to the Criminal Code (PRESS HERE) and then decide who influenced our law.
Undue influence? Need to get the fix in place for SNC in a timely manner?
Next post will deal with the change in language from Deferred Prosecution Agreements to Remediation Agreements. Funny that when GM Butts resigned - he actually used the term Deferred Prosecution Agreements instead of Remediation Agreements - the latter of which is actually law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)