08.14.2019 04:27 PM

JWR speaks the truth

Here. Read.


  1. Nasty Bob says:

    Is it 25 years that cabinet confidence holds ?

    I probably won’t be around to collect but I’d bet 100 bucks that the thing nobody is allowed to talk about are discussions that likely happened about sections 715.32 (1)(c)/ 2(i) and (3) of the criminal code.

    A DPA is available if it is the prosecutor is of the opinion that it’s in the public interest 715.32(1) (c) …..there’s a list of things to consider in determining public interest including any other factors the prosecutor thinks relevant (2)(I)

    Now the PMO/PCO seem to be arguing that the DPA is in the public interest because of national economic interests (ie. massive job losses to innocent workers; losses to pension plans etc etc)

    But if the offender (SNC) is charged under s 3 of the Corruption of Foreign Officials Act – which they were- then s715.32 (3) says one of the factors the prosecution must NOT consider is national economic interest

    So , if I’m reading things right, PMO/PCO wasn’t just putting undue pressure on the AG they were asking her to break the law by telling her to consider relevant factors that -by law- can’t be relevant

    I could very well be wrong because there are people way smarter than me that I’d expect to raise this issue but haven’t ….yet I’ll still take bets – just be warned if I am wrong you may have difficulties collecting 25 yrs down the road

    • Jim R says:


      1) Massive job loses:
      If SNC-Lavalin were to go under due to a guilty verdict, most of the workers would find new jobs. The reason is quite straightforward: the work would still be there, and other companies would need people to do the work.

      2) Losses to pension plans:
      Any pension plan that can come under non-trivial strain from the failing of a single company should fire the fund’s managers. There’s a reason that the word “diversification” is used so often when it comes to asset allocation of investments.
      In other words, a pension fund would have to be unbelievably poorly run for this to be an issue.

      3) SNC-Lavalin’s workers’ pensions:
      AFAICT, SNC-Lavalin workers have a defined contribution pension plan, not a defined benefit pension plan. This means that pension assets, and thus pension payouts, are unaffected in the event of company failure.

      All the reasons given by the PM for ensuring that SNC-Lavalin doesn’t see its day in court are totally bogus.

      • Fred from BC says:

        “If SNC-Lavalin were to go under due to a guilty verdict, most of the workers would find new jobs. ”

        My thought as well. Even if they stayed afloat, and lost those government contracts, another Canadian company would be chosen and the jobs would still exist….just maybe not in Quebec (which I suspect is the real point here).

        • Fred,

          There are lots of engineering firms in Quebec. Maybe not of the scope and size as the so-called fleuron but the fix would likely be in for another Quebec firm to get plenty of federal contracts. And they would simply hire many of those same people who used to work at SNC-L.

  2. Mark D says:

    Shifting the topic slightly, is it just me or does JWR look a lot happier and less stressed in social media than she did during her last few years as a cabinet minister?

  3. Vancouverois says:

    The first would not work – there’s no way either of them will run for the CPC. It would be an empty gesture at best, and seen as an insincere attempt at pandering at worst.

Leave a Reply to Mark D Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *